CelticsStrong
Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: bdm860 on February 18, 2013, 02:02:23 PM
-
Some people want the C’s to rebuild, some people want to hang on to Pierce and Garnett, and I understand where both sides are coming from. But that got me thinking, what’s the average or typical or realistic rebuilding time for a team?
Now there is rarely a clear consensus about who actually is a contender, but for the sake of this discussion of rebuilding times, I considered a team a contender when they win 50 games (or 61% win % for lockouts) and make the 2nd round of the playoffs (though this is just a guideline, not a rule). So let’s take a look at how much time teams spend between being contenders:
Atlanta was last a contender in 1999 and didn’t become somewhat of a contender again until 2010. That’s 11 years (and most probably wouldn't even consider them contenders the last few years).
Boston was a contender in 1992 and didn’t become a contender again until 2008. That’s 16 years.
Brooklyn was a contender from 2002 to 2006 and that was it unless you go back to their ABA days. But some would argue they’re a contender now (though not on pace for 50 wins). Best case was 7 years rebuilding till now. Before Kidd got there, it was about 25 years rebuilding.
Charlotte has never been a contender in 9 years.
Chicago was a contender in 1998 and wasn’t a contender again until 2011. That’s 13 years.
Cleveland was a contender in ’93 and wasn’t a contender again until 2006. That’s 13 years, and despite Irving looking awesome, who knows when they’ll be a contender again.
Dallas was a contender in ’88 and wasn’t a contender again until 2001. That’s 13 years, but they had a solid 10+ year run after that.
Denver was a contender in ’88 and wasn’t a contender again until 2009. That’s 21 years.
Detroit was a contender in ’91 and wasn’t a contender again until 2002. That’s 11 years.
Golden State was a contender in ’76 and hasn’t been a contender since until this year. That’s 36 years until now.
Houston was a contender in ’99 and only made the 2nd round once since, when both their superstars (TMac and Yao) were injured. Though even though they didn’t make it out of the 2nd round except that one time, I would consider them a dark horse contender in the mid-to-late 2000’s with Yao and TMac. So they probably had a 6 year stretch of rebuilding between Hakeem and Yao, and currently been rebuilding for about 4 years now.
Indiana was a contender in 2000, again in 2004, and again in 2012. They’ve been able to build 3 different contenders in 12 years, that front office has been pretty underrated in my opinion.
LA Clippers were never a contender until this season. That’s 42 seasons.
LA Lakers were contenders in ’91, then again from ’96-’05,then again from ’08-’12. So they had a 5 year and 3 year rebuild.
Memphis was never a contender (though is probably one now, it may be very brief though with them cutting salary). That’s 17 years.
Miami was a contender in 2001, again from ’05-’06, and again starting in 2011.
Milwaukee was probably last contenders in ’91, then contended again for a year in 2001, hasn’t been a contender since. So they’ve basically been rebuilding 21 of the last 22 years.
Minnesota was a contender for one year, 2004, one year in their entire 24 year history.
New Orleans was a contender in 2008, and that was about it. (Though you could probably argue they were dark horses a couple of years in the early 2000’s.). So all but a handful of seasons at best in 24 years, have been spent rebuilding.
New York was last a contender in 2000, and hasn’t been a contender again till this year. That’s 12 years.
OKC/Seattle was a contender in 1998, had a fluke year in 2005, and then again in 2011. Excluding 2005 (Ray/Rashard’s team), they’ve been rebuilding for 12 of 13 years until recently.
Orlando was a contender in ’96, then again from ’08-’11. That’s 12 years of rebuilding, for a 304 year run.
Philly was a contender in 1990, then again for one season (or maybe two) with Iverson in ’99 and ’00, and hasn’t been a contender again since. So a 9 year rebuilding period, for a 2 year run. Followed by at least a 13 year rebuilding period (that may go much longer, who knows how Bynum will perform as the main man).
Phoenix was a contender in 1995, then again from 2005-2010. (And possibly from ’98-’01 when they had three 50 win seasons, but only made it out of the 1st round once). At worst, 10 years between contenders.
Portland was a contender in 2000, kept hope alive until 2003, then have been rebuilding for 10 years now.
Sacramento had a 4-5 year stretch from ’01-’05 when they were contenders, and besides that you have to go back to when they played in Cincinnati and Rochester to find when they were last contenders. They’ve been rebuilding for 8 years now.
San Antonio, except for a couple of seasons have been contenders pretty much since 1990.
Toronto has never been a contender in 18 years
Utah had a pretty solid 20 year run as contenders, ending about 2001, and then a 4 year stretch from ’07-’10. That’s a 5 year rebuild, who knows how long till they’re contenders again.
Washington hasn’t been a contender since 1979. That’s 33 years.
Maybe you can argue a team or two, but I see a lot of 10+ year stretches between contenders for the majority of teams. And the rebuild time is typically longer than the good times. It even takes premier destinations like LAL and Miami 3-5 years to rebuild. Another premier destination, New York has been rebuilding for 12 years. It’s rare when you get a San Antonio, Dallas, Utah who can contend for 10+ years straight. And you have only a handful of non-premier destinations like Indiana who were able to rebuild somewhat quickly.
It doesn’t matter when you start rebuilding, it can take a long time. I think we should ride Garnett and Pierce to retirement. The idea that the C's can rebuild in 3 or so years is just a pipe dream. I think Danny is a great GM, but even so, it’s rare when a team can rebuild in a short period of time. It takes a lot of luck.
-
Boston just missed your "contender" cut by one regular season game in 2002.
TP for an interesting post.
-
Boston was in the Eastern Conference Finals in 2002. You have to call one of the final 4 teams a contender. There really is no other way around it. Also, by your definition, Boston was not a contender last year even though it again was in the ECF and 1 win away from the NBA Finals.
The Nets actually made the NBA Finals in the early 2000's without winning 50 games and were the #2 seed in the Eastern Conference.
Portland actually won the NBA title in 76-77 without winning 50 games. Thus the champion was not a contender.
I'm sure there are plenty of other examples. It just seems to me you arbitrarily picked a win total and didn't put much thought into or make sure you were on to something.
I think a better look would be any team that made the conference finals is a contender. As is any team that finishes in the top 2 in their conference in the regular season. As is any team that wins at least 55 games. That should give you a much better and more accurate look at teams that are actual contenders.
-
TP.
And regardless of whether people think we should trade PP and KG or not, people do need to take a look at the above list and get a reality check. Even if we trade PP and KG for nice packages of young players, it's still likely going to be a very long time before we're a contender again.
The NBA is a league where superstars dominate. And no one is going to give us one for KG and PP.
-
Boston was in the Eastern Conference Finals in 2002. You have to call one of the final 4 teams a contender. There really is no other way around it. Also, by your definition, Boston was not a contender last year even though it again was in the ECF and 1 win away from the NBA Finals.
The Nets actually made the NBA Finals in the early 2000's without winning 50 games and were the #2 seed in the Eastern Conference.
Portland actually won the NBA title in 76-77 without winning 50 games. Thus the champion was not a contender.
I'm sure there are plenty of other examples. It just seems to me you arbitrarily picked a win total and didn't put much thought into or make sure you were on to something.
I think a better look would be any team that made the conference finals is a contender. As is any team that finishes in the top 2 in their conference in the regular season. As is any team that wins at least 55 games. That should give you a much better and more accurate look at teams that are actual contenders.
They weren't a legitimate contender in 2002 because they lucked into a conference final in a pathetic conference and proceeded to fall off the map, sorry.
Last year's team was because of the players on the team and just the era of Celtics basketball where they've gone into every year with kg thinking championship.
-
Pretty cool post. Tp
I'd like to see something where it shows the avg time it took for a contending team to move on and get the next big piece to the next string of contending years
-
TP.
And regardless of whether people think we should trade PP and KG or not, people do need to take a look at the above list and get a reality check. Even if we trade PP and KG for nice packages of young players, it's still likely going to be a very long time before we're a contender again.
The NBA is a league where superstars dominate. And no one is going to give us one for KG and PP.
Precisely.
Which is why the haste to close the book on this era is folly. There is plenty of time for that in the off-season, if necessary.
-
Great post. TP. Even the best franchises go through there rebuilds. Crazy how it works.
-
Boston was in the Eastern Conference Finals in 2002. You have to call one of the final 4 teams a contender. There really is no other way around it. Also, by your definition, Boston was not a contender last year even though it again was in the ECF and 1 win away from the NBA Finals.
The Nets actually made the NBA Finals in the early 2000's without winning 50 games and were the #2 seed in the Eastern Conference.
Portland actually won the NBA title in 76-77 without winning 50 games. Thus the champion was not a contender.
I'm sure there are plenty of other examples. It just seems to me you arbitrarily picked a win total and didn't put much thought into or make sure you were on to something.
I think a better look would be any team that made the conference finals is a contender. As is any team that finishes in the top 2 in their conference in the regular season. As is any team that wins at least 55 games. That should give you a much better and more accurate look at teams that are actual contenders.
Funny, I'd have thought that you were in the camp that the Celts weren't really contenders last year despite their reaching the ecf.
-
By this set of metrics, we weren't a contender last year, we were barely a contender in 2010 by winning exactly 50 games, and we certainly aren't a contender this year.
So even with Pierce and KG, we aren't contenders, according to this post. Hardly an argument to keep both.
For the record, I think we can still be a contender and should keep Pierce and KG (because nothing out there seems overly tempting) but this post doesn't do a good job of arguing for that.
-
Boston was in the Eastern Conference Finals in 2002. You have to call one of the final 4 teams a contender. There really is no other way around it. Also, by your definition, Boston was not a contender last year even though it again was in the ECF and 1 win away from the NBA Finals.
The Nets actually made the NBA Finals in the early 2000's without winning 50 games and were the #2 seed in the Eastern Conference.
Portland actually won the NBA title in 76-77 without winning 50 games. Thus the champion was not a contender.
I'm sure there are plenty of other examples. It just seems to me you arbitrarily picked a win total and didn't put much thought into or make sure you were on to something.
I think a better look would be any team that made the conference finals is a contender. As is any team that finishes in the top 2 in their conference in the regular season. As is any team that wins at least 55 games. That should give you a much better and more accurate look at teams that are actual contenders.
Well thanks for proving my very first point. ;)
Now there is rarely a clear consensus about who actually is a contender
And I did say:
(though this is just a guideline, not a rule)
And I also mentioned how New Jersey was a contender in that year they won less than 50 games but made the Finals.
And you reference 1976 Portland? I'm talking about the current NBA. Notice how I only went back for most teams to their 90's teams (unless there was just a clear line of futility back many, many more years).
I admit, not a perfect science. In my mind, it's simple, 50 wins and 2nd round gives teams and their fans a decent amount of "hope" for the most part that their in the hunt for a championship (compared to teams who upset their way into the later rounds of the playoffs or play in a weak conference). I think the vast majority of the time, you tell me a team who is a contender, they'll have 50+ wins and make it to the 2nd round. Plus I am just a poster on a blog, I need something simple I can look up. If you want to look up all 30 teams, and where they finished in the conference, plus where they finished in the playoffs, plus if they won 55 games or not, going back X years, be my guest. The results will be pretty much the same as mine, it takes most teams a VERY long time to rebuild. Rebuilding isn't as easy as some think.
-
Actually Charlotte did have some "contending" teams with the Hornets. But not the Bobcats.
-
Your post doesn't make keeping Pierce and Garnett sound more attractive. By your guidelines this team is more than likely not a contender, but we're clearly not rebuilding. If rebuilding is something that takes a long time what's the benefit of waiting to dive into it?
I'm definitely willing to hold on to PP and KG until the end of the season, but I'd rather not wait the length of their contracts to start the rebuilding process.
-
By this set of metrics, we weren't a contender last year, we were barely a contender in 2010 by winning exactly 50 games, and we certainly aren't a contender this year.
So even with Pierce and KG, we aren't contenders, according to this post. Hardly an argument to keep both.
For the record, I think we can still be a contender and should keep Pierce and KG (because nothing out there seems overly tempting) but this post doesn't do a good job of arguing for that.
I don't think the point of the thread was "what's the exact definition of a contender", more that everyone who thinks we'll be bad for a few years, draft a franchise player and be right back at the top should take a look at how long it generally takes to get back to the top. Some people want to dump KG and PP to get into rebuilding quicker as if that will mean we'll be contenders sooner when the amount of time you suck for is more luck than anything else.
-
Somewhere between 5 years and never.
It took Chicago 7 years and multiple top 3 picks until they even made the playoffs after they broke up the Jordan team.
Our Celtics mini-dynasty is basically a poor-man's version of Detroit's early 00s mini-dynasty. If Detroit's 2004 is Boston's 2008... (Champions)... then our 2012 is the same as Detroit's 2008. (Eastern Conference Finals)... then Our 2013 might play out the same as their 2009 - 1st round exit...
Their last 3 years:
2010 - 27 wins
2011 - 30 wins
2012 - 25 wins
They are 21-33 right now. At this pace, Boston will still be well below .500 by 2016. If it plays out like the 80s Celtics, we might not sniff the playoffs for another 20 or so years.
-
Your post doesn't make keeping Pierce and Garnett sound more attractive. By your guidelines this team is more than likely not a contender, but we're clearly not rebuilding. If rebuilding is something that takes a long time what's the benefit of waiting to dive into it?
I'm definitely willing to hold on to PP and KG until the end of the season, but I'd rather not wait the length of their contracts to start the rebuilding process.
I would contend that rebuilding time goes way down when you have a star already on your team. Pierce and KG are still stars, although not the super-stars they once were. Stay the course.
I contend that having Pierce and KG certainly makes it more likely that other stars would want to come play in Boston than *not* having Pierce or KG on the team. PP & KG won't be here much longer, but we also have Rondo...also a star, but not really a super-star.
If we "stay the course, then yes, the C's will have some "down years", but hopefully not the 10+ years you were listing in the OP.
Boston is already rebuilding. Danny is collecting "assets" to develop/trade. Rondo will be back next year and if we're even a little competitive, and we will be, so will Pierce and KG. I don't think Rondo is the optimal man to build around, so eventually, he might have to go with other assets for that near super-star, but maybe I'm wrong. Either way I think the C's can stay contenders with KG/Pierce/Rondo and role players for another 2 or 3 years. This gives Danny time to get lucky and find that next core...and it may take the luck of the Irish to do it.
-
Boston was in the Eastern Conference Finals in 2002. You have to call one of the final 4 teams a contender. There really is no other way around it. Also, by your definition, Boston was not a contender last year even though it again was in the ECF and 1 win away from the NBA Finals.
The Nets actually made the NBA Finals in the early 2000's without winning 50 games and were the #2 seed in the Eastern Conference.
Portland actually won the NBA title in 76-77 without winning 50 games. Thus the champion was not a contender.
I'm sure there are plenty of other examples. It just seems to me you arbitrarily picked a win total and didn't put much thought into or make sure you were on to something.
I think a better look would be any team that made the conference finals is a contender. As is any team that finishes in the top 2 in their conference in the regular season. As is any team that wins at least 55 games. That should give you a much better and more accurate look at teams that are actual contenders.
Boston absolutely was NOT a contender in 2002. Who ever came out of the East was fodder for the 4-5 contenders in the West during that era. Didn't count. The Nets were never a threat to win a title either... not with all the elite bigs playing out west. Any team who had made it to the Finals would have trounced the Nets those two years.
-
Somewhere between 5 years and never.
It took Chicago 7 years and multiple top 3 picks until they even made the playoffs after they broke up the Jordan team.
Our Celtics mini-dynasty is basically a poor-man's version of Detroit's early 00s mini-dynasty. If Detroit's 2004 is Boston's 2008... (Champions)... then our 2012 is the same as Detroit's 2008. (Eastern Conference Finals)... then Our 2013 might play out the same as their 2009 - 1st round exit...
Their last 3 years:
2010 - 27 wins
2011 - 30 wins
2012 - 25 wins
They are 21-33 right now. At this pace, Boston will still be well below .500 by 2016. If it plays out like the 80s Celtics, we might not sniff the playoffs for another 20 or so years.
It's possible. But we have no way of knowing. Luck of the ping pong ball or anything could make that much shorter or longer. I'd say we have more younger talent then the pistons had to keep or trade.
-
Boston was in the Eastern Conference Finals in 2002. You have to call one of the final 4 teams a contender. There really is no other way around it. Also, by your definition, Boston was not a contender last year even though it again was in the ECF and 1 win away from the NBA Finals.
The Nets actually made the NBA Finals in the early 2000's without winning 50 games and were the #2 seed in the Eastern Conference.
Portland actually won the NBA title in 76-77 without winning 50 games. Thus the champion was not a contender.
I'm sure there are plenty of other examples. It just seems to me you arbitrarily picked a win total and didn't put much thought into or make sure you were on to something.
I think a better look would be any team that made the conference finals is a contender. As is any team that finishes in the top 2 in their conference in the regular season. As is any team that wins at least 55 games. That should give you a much better and more accurate look at teams that are actual contenders.
Funny, I'd have thought that you were in the camp that the Celts weren't really contenders last year despite their reaching the ecf.
I don't think Boston would have been there without injuries to other teams (and had no chance to beat a healthy Heat club), but they did finish the season as one of the final four teams and were 1 win away from the NBA Finals. That can't be denied. I just don't think that finish should have lead to the off season we made as it gave false hope.
-
Your post doesn't make keeping Pierce and Garnett sound more attractive. By your guidelines this team is more than likely not a contender, but we're clearly not rebuilding. If rebuilding is something that takes a long time what's the benefit of waiting to dive into it?
I'm definitely willing to hold on to PP and KG until the end of the season, but I'd rather not wait the length of their contracts to start the rebuilding process.
Great point. The thread makes an assumption that isn't true i.e. if you are not a contender then you must be rebuilding. Sure some teams like the Bulls go from champion to rebuilding in one off season, but that is very rare. Most teams go from contender, to mid-level playoff team, to barely in the playoffs or just missing them, to finally going into rebuilding. There is as much a downward cycle as there is an upward cycle. To truly be accurate you have to figure out when the team actually went into rebuilding not when they weren't an arbitrarily defined not a contender status.
-
TP. Great post, was wondering the same thing all week! I would put contender = best 4-6 teams depending on the year and the competition so it is a very hard line to graph.
Luck is such a huge part, getting a super star through the draft has little to do with GMing skills, anyone could pick Duncan or Lebron if they had the first pick.
Stocking assets and being able to trade them for a super-star is the skill part. On this board I read all the time "we can't get so and so we have no one to trade for him". Yet it seems every year some team trades a bunch of junk to get a big name player. Look at the Howard trade, they gave up Bynum who should be a great player, but is injury plagued. Hell Orlando didn't even take him, I still can't figure out Edited. Profanity and masked profanity are against forum rules and may result in discipline. Orlando did get?
I can't wait for the trade deadline to be over regardless of what happens. I will root for our team either way, even if that means root for them to lose to get a good pick hahaha.
-
Interesting post, well researched, and definitely a worthy topic for discussion.
Even if we are to accept your (arguably narrow) definition of a contender, I think one factor you overlook is that even when teams are in a "rebuilding" phase, there will be a handful of years where they aren't quite a contender yet, but have the exciting pieces in place and are clearly moving towards being one. They may never get there, but those years are not "lost" years.
A great example would be the 2-3 years leading up to the Thunder's first trip to the WCF back in 2010. 2008 and 2009 were tough years for the Thunder in terms of winning, but they had their key players in place, and they were exciting.
So while the "10-13 years" for some of these teams sounds especially long, you might have to subtract 3-4 years in some cases because even when those teams weren't contenders, they had their young star in place and were clearly on their way.
The Cavs, as another example, were not a contender until 2005-2006, but as soon as they had LeBron on board they had arrived as a team worth paying attention to.
-
Your post doesn't make keeping Pierce and Garnett sound more attractive. By your guidelines this team is more than likely not a contender, but we're clearly not rebuilding. If rebuilding is something that takes a long time what's the benefit of waiting to dive into it?
I'm definitely willing to hold on to PP and KG until the end of the season, but I'd rather not wait the length of their contracts to start the rebuilding process.
I would contend that rebuilding time goes way down when you have a star already on your team. Pierce and KG are still stars, although not the super-stars they once were. Stay the course.
I contend that having Pierce and KG certainly makes it more likely that other stars would want to come play in Boston than *not* having Pierce or KG on the team. PP & KG won't be here much longer, but we also have Rondo...also a star, but not really a super-star.
If we "stay the course, then yes, the C's will have some "down years", but hopefully not the 10+ years you were listing in the OP.
Boston is already rebuilding. Danny is collecting "assets" to develop/trade. Rondo will be back next year and if we're even a little competitive, and we will be, so will Pierce and KG. I don't think Rondo is the optimal man to build around, so eventually, he might have to go with other assets for that near super-star, but maybe I'm wrong. Either way I think the C's can stay contenders with KG/Pierce/Rondo and role players for another 2 or 3 years. This gives Danny time to get lucky and find that next core...and it may take the luck of the Irish to do it.
What leads you to think a young all-stars would sign on to play with a 35+ and 37+ year old Pierce and Garnett? Remember what happened with Chris Paul? These guys have already seen their brightest days on a basketball court and everybody knows it. Even if a player wanted to sign here we don't have the cash for a major addition at least not without making a trade. As things stand now looking forward to the next few off-season with Pierce and Garnett the only players we can sign will be mid-level role players.
As for Rondo, he will more than likely miss the majority of next season if not all of it. When he does comeback he will still need time to get himself re-acclimated to NBA for better or worse(having to adjust to being slower and less explosive). To make matters worse the better this team does with out him the worse it seems to have reflected on his game. Gm's have never been crazy about Rondo and he doesn't come off as the most well liked guy among players. In short his value/appeal is losing stock by the day.
IMHO, last year should been the last hurrah. I'm fine with giving Pierce and Garnett this year, but no more after that. That doesn't necessarily mean trade them if they still want to play, but it does mean making moves(drafting and signings) that are more about the future.
-
1100 years for Celtics
10 days for the Lakers
-
It depends on chance really. Unless you are the Lakers....
-
Fantastic post. You developed criteria with the requisite disclaimers, and since you are a blog poster and not working for ESPN (I assume), your post is worthy of high praise and multiple TPs.
The big point is well-taken -- becoming a contender is difficult and mostly based on the luck of drafting a megastar or positioning for trading for or signing a megastar (often influenced by location of franchise or current existence of a star).
Franchises that began recent "rebuilds" with megastar already in hand include LA (Kobe), San Antonio (Duncan), and Heat (Wade). Boston does not have that luxury unless you consider Rondo a star on that level (which I would guess most of us don't).
The choice is a tough one. KG, PP and Rondo MAY have been able to put something together this year with some 'big' help. But, that ship may now have sailed. If so, I'd be on board with jump-starting the only way I think we can realistically build the next contender -- hoarding assets.
-
IMHO, last year should been the last hurrah. I'm fine with giving Pierce and Garnett this year, but no more after that. That doesn't necessarily mean trade them if they still want to play, but it does mean making moves(drafting and signings) that are more about the future.
I think Ainge has been making moves with an eye toward the future ,while not totally giving up on the present, for the past couple of seasons.
The Celtics really can't begin to truly move forward until Pierce and KG are gone, though. It's obvious we aren't going to successfully transition to playing a different way or having a new team identity until that happens. Which may not be a good thing, at least first. But they will need to move on in order to become a top team again.
-
Fantastic post. You developed criteria with the requisite disclaimers, and since you are a blog poster and not working for ESPN (I assume), your post is worthy of high praise and multiple TPs.
The big point is well-taken -- becoming a contender is difficult and mostly based on the luck of drafting a megastar or positioning for trading for or signing a megastar (often influenced by location of franchise or current existence of a star).
Franchises that began recent "rebuilds" with megastar already in hand include LA (Kobe), San Antonio (Duncan), and Heat (Wade). Boston does not have that luxury unless you consider Rondo a star on that level (which I would guess most of us don't).
The choice is a tough one. KG, PP and Rondo MAY have been able to put something together this year with some 'big' help. But, that ship may now have sailed. If so, I'd be on board with jump-starting the only way I think we can realistically build the next contender -- hoarding assets.
But, see, I don't think this is the *last* year that KG/PP/RR can make noise together. I haven't seen a big fall off in either KG's or Paul's play and suspect that if they do play here next year they will be 98% of what they are this year...and that's really very good! I am convinced that, with a little luck, *this* team can beat anybody in a best of seven.
I'm convinced that this team plus RR, plus Sully, plus an MLE center can beat anybody in a best of seven next year, too. Maybe I'm delusional, but I still feel this way.
-
If the Celtics have an above-average front office, should the team be expected to take less time than average to rebuild?
-
Since 1980 only 9 teams have won NBA championships so for 21 of the franchises it has been over 30 years since winning a championship.
That is why I say, as long as there is a hope that a twisted ankle or crazy hot shooting week for your team can get you into the championship series, you have to go for it.
Rebuilding can be brutal and derailed by one DUI, drug overdose, heart condition, or who knows what else. It is such a fragile thing and having lived threw two long rebuilds already with the C's, I want to fight off rebuilding for as long as possible.
-
Somewhere between 5 years and never.
It took Chicago 7 years and multiple top 3 picks until they even made the playoffs after they broke up the Jordan team.
Our Celtics mini-dynasty is basically a poor-man's version of Detroit's early 00s mini-dynasty. If Detroit's 2004 is Boston's 2008... (Champions)... then our 2012 is the same as Detroit's 2008. (Eastern Conference Finals)... then Our 2013 might play out the same as their 2009 - 1st round exit...
Their last 3 years:
2010 - 27 wins
2011 - 30 wins
2012 - 25 wins
They are 21-33 right now. At this pace, Boston will still be well below .500 by 2016. If it plays out like the 80s Celtics, we might not sniff the playoffs for another 20 or so years.
Rondo, if they surround him with talent should be able to get Boston to the playoffs every year. They have a few chips to build around while Detroit only had Prince and Rip. I agree with the main point that rebuilding doesn't assure contending any time soon. Around here it's rebuild+tank+blow it up = dynasty in the next 5 years. People really need to think things through