Ainge says Red Kept the Big Three too Long

[cordobes]

I predicted before the season that Scal would play more minutes than most would like, that Pierce would need to play at the 4 and that this team needed outside shooting.

I never understood one of the most hilarious lines of arguments I used to read here frequently: that not having a small-ball option would be good for the team (another one was that it was good to not have so many jump-shooters as that would allow the team to attack the rim more....). Ainge and Doc started spinning that after Posey signed elsewhere, but come on... Ainge also said that Rondo was taking 300 jump-shots the day after game 6 of the finals. One can't believe everything.

People who think that the small-ball lineup didn't work last season should consider the alternatives and make the question: what would be the outcome without the small-ball lineup? The idea that you never need to match-up, or that not matching-up is always the best option, may have some merits at lower levels (especially leagues without parity where your team is much stronger than the opponents), but it is bizarre at this level. You can leave without a clear small-ball lineup, but it's always a positive to have one.

More importantly for our current situation, there's a big difference between smallball and playing undersized line-ups (something we frequently do now). Small-ball is about being quicker and more agile than your opponent, and playing well in transition. It doesn't necessarily mean the players have to be smaller - the other day I was watching the Warriors playing Belinelli-Jackson-Randolph-Wright-Biedrins, certainly one of the tallest lineups in the history of the league.

I find it amusing that people say it's good to avoid playing small-ball when now we frequently play line-ups with the disadvantage associated with small-ball (lack of size, troubles in halfcourt sets), but none of the advantages (the quickness, the versatility, the transition game, etc).

Anyway, the skill-set of a basketball team is not a zero-sum game. That's a very important notion to keep in mind.

[cordobes]

The question is, does it make sense to worry about four years from now, or should you maximize your opportunity to win in the future?  I'm of the latter mindset:  since we have three elite players who are approaching the end of their primes, you need to do everything in your power to win now.  You don't worry about down the road, and you don't worry about trading them away.

I basically agree with you, but I don't like that dichotomy (you probably don't like it as well, it's just a dichotomy that can be perceived from that paragraph). It's very possible to have, for example, one of those players still in his prime and not be a serious contender anymore. In that case, and being that guy too old to build around, the right thing to do is to ship him away ASAP and get some value for him.

I agree with what Ron, Jon and others said about Red and the Big Three. Ainge makes it look very obvious - and, with the benefit of the hindsight, it probably is - but, at the time, it wasn't that clear.

Anyway, it's possible to keep an eye on the future without jeopardizing the priority that should be to win now.

Finally, I hope Wyc doesn't stop Ainge from trading Pierce if that's the right thing to do from a basketball standpoint, let alone Garnett or Allen.

[nickagneta]

I predicted before the season that Scal would play more minutes than most would like, that Pierce would need to play at the 4 and that this team needed outside shooting.

I never understood one of the most hilarious lines of arguments I used to read here frequently: that not having a small-ball option would be good for the team (another one was that it was good to not have so many jump-shooters as that would allow the team to attack the rim more....). Ainge and Doc started spinning that after Posey signed elsewhere, but come on... Ainge also said that Rondo was taking 300 jump-shots the day after game 6 of the finals. One can't believe everything.

People who think that the small-ball lineup didn't work last season should consider the alternatives and make the question: what would be the outcome without the small-ball lineup? The idea that you never need to match-up, or that not matching-up is always the best option, may have some merits at lower levels (especially leagues without parity where your team is much stronger than the opponents), but it is bizarre at this level. You can leave without a clear small-ball lineup, but it's always a positive to have one.

More importantly for our current situation, there's a big difference between smallball and playing undersized line-ups (something we frequently do now). Small-ball is about being quicker and more agile than your opponent, and playing well in transition. It doesn't necessarily mean the players have to be smaller - the other day I was watching the Warriors playing Belinelli-Jackson-Randolph-Wright-Biedrins, certainly one of the tallest lineups in the history of the league.

I find it amusing that people say it's good to avoid playing small-ball when now we frequently play line-ups with the disadvantage associated with small-ball (lack of size, troubles in halfcourt sets), but none of the advantages (the quickness, the versatility, the transition game, etc).

Anyway, the skill-set of a basketball team is not a zero-sum game. That's a very important notion to keep in mind.

I don't think that it is good to avoid any particular style of play, including small ball, but I do think it's rather wasteful and counterproductive to play a style you just aren't good at. And the Celtics weren't nearly as good a team when they played the small ball style. Then Doc compounded that by playing the style nearly every single game. The stats in this regard don't lie. Heck, Doc and Danny admitted that the team was a ton more ineffective as a team when playing that style. Here's the 5-man unit stats from last year. Throughout the stats it is obvious that the Celtics defense was markedly poorer when posey played the 4 and the overall point differential was in this style wasn't any better.

http://www.82games.com/0708/0708BOS2.HTM

As for a couple of other things. This year the second team is undersized. Last year the second team was an undersized unit as well but they an undersized unit that were able to play small ball. Doc really didn't have a choice but to go to small ball because that style suited the personnel he had given Posey's obvious skills. With Posey, small ball is possible with the possibility of it being highly successful at times. Without him, it's tougher because they are missing that outside shooter who can hit threes, run the floor, and guard bigs. Posey was the perfect catalyst for this team to transform them into a team that could be successful at times in small ball.

[cordobes]

Nick, once again: the fact that the stats are poorer doesn't mean they aren't the best possible outcome. It just means that we weren't very good playing small-ball, not that the best option would have been to not play small-ball at all.

Doc knew the stats before the end of the season. Why did he keep using the line-up? Why did Ainge offered Posey a $20 million/3 year contract?

[nickagneta]

Nick, once again: the fact that the stats are poorer doesn't mean they aren't the best possible outcome. It just means that we weren't very good playing small-ball, not that the best option would have been to not play small-ball at all.

Doc knew the stats before the end of the season. Why did he keep using the line-up? Why did Ainge offered Posey a $20 million/3 year contract?

No, as my edit clearly states, I agree. Given what he had, Doc best possible chance at success was the small ball lineup. I defended him using it ad nauseum for most of the beginning of the year when it wasn't completely obvious it wasn't working nearly as good as some wanted. But given what was seen and given the stats, after the season I think Danny would have been wiser persuing personnel that fit into their more successful styles better. Adding Tony, Eddie, and POB and keeping two rookies on the fifteen man roster didn't enhance anything and didn't assist them in being able to play small ball, if and when it was needed. As you said, he needed more shooters, preferably ones that weren't undersized and had better well rounded games than the group he persued.

Hence my love for and constant call for Roger Mason and my pipe dream additions of Kurt Thomas and Pietrus, or Barnes if Pietrus wasn't available. Sadly, they didn't have the salary room for all that but I think players of that type would have best suited this team. Mason instead of Allen would hae made a huge difference IMO.

[Roy Hobbs]

More importantly, if no good deal for Ray Allen presents itself, Ainge will have the cap space for a blue chip free agent in 2010. That would not have been the case has the team kept Posey.

Actually, and Roy discussed this at length in his "Salary Cap:FAQ's" thread. Apparently they will have only slightly over the MLE avaiable at best in 2010 according to Roy's calculations.

And that was based upon the salary cap going up by about $5 million+ over two years.  Every indication now is that next year's salary cap may go *down*.

[Brickowski]

More importantly, if no good deal for Ray Allen presents itself, Ainge will have the cap space for a blue chip free agent in 2010. That would not have been the case has the team kept Posey.

Actually, and Roy discussed this at length in his "Salary Cap:FAQ's" thread. Apparently they will have only slightly over the MLE avaiable at best in 2010 according to Roy's calculations.

But other moves to increase cap space are possible.

[nickagneta]

More importantly, if no good deal for Ray Allen presents itself, Ainge will have the cap space for a blue chip free agent in 2010. That would not have been the case has the team kept Posey.

Actually, and Roy discussed this at length in his "Salary Cap:FAQ's" thread. Apparently they will have only slightly over the MLE avaiable at best in 2010 according to Roy's calculations.

And that was based upon the salary cap going up by about $5 million+ over two years.  Every indication now is that next year's salary cap may go *down*.

Does that effect the MLE level? If the salary cap decreases does the MLE level then decrease as well?

[cordobes]

More importantly, if no good deal for Ray Allen presents itself, Ainge will have the cap space for a blue chip free agent in 2010. That would not have been the case has the team kept Posey.

Actually, and Roy discussed this at length in his "Salary Cap:FAQ's" thread. Apparently they will have only slightly over the MLE avaiable at best in 2010 according to Roy's calculations.

But other moves to increase cap space are possible.

Like what?

[Donoghus]

More importantly, if no good deal for Ray Allen presents itself, Ainge will have the cap space for a blue chip free agent in 2010. That would not have been the case has the team kept Posey.

Actually, and Roy discussed this at length in his "Salary Cap:FAQ's" thread. Apparently they will have only slightly over the MLE avaiable at best in 2010 according to Roy's calculations.

But other moves to increase cap space are possible.

Realistically though, what moves could significantly improve cap space without just blowing the whole thing up? 

[wdleehi]

I can see Ainge trade the three stars.  Just more then one in any trade.



I still see Ray going first in the offseason.


Unless a team like the Wiz decide that they want to blow the team up and look to 2010 to rebuild and pull off this trade.

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/traderesult?players=9~2367~3200~2746~1705~385&teams=27~27~27~2~2~2&te=&cash=

(I know, completely far fetched.  But it would put the Wiz at only 27 million going into 2010 and an attractive teammate in Arenas)  

But I really don't see a real knockout trade out there.

[Roy Hobbs]

More importantly, if no good deal for Ray Allen presents itself, Ainge will have the cap space for a blue chip free agent in 2010. That would not have been the case has the team kept Posey.

Actually, and Roy discussed this at length in his "Salary Cap:FAQ's" thread. Apparently they will have only slightly over the MLE avaiable at best in 2010 according to Roy's calculations.

And that was based upon the salary cap going up by about $5 million+ over two years.  Every indication now is that next year's salary cap may go *down*.

Does that effect the MLE level? If the salary cap decreases does the MLE level then decrease as well?

I don't believe the LLE is impacted, and will be $1.99 million no matter what next season. 

As for the MLE, it's based upon the average player salary, and as such, it will probably go up (since salaries have been escalating).

Here's a link to the salary cap potentially going down:  Link.

[Brickowski]

Well, all kinds of things could happen in 2010.  There are sign & trade options, etc.  There will be alot of player movement in June and July of 2010.  There will be bargains to be had, as everyone scrambles to clear cap space for the big name free agents like LeBron and Bosh.

The cap depends on BRI which in turn depends on the economy, but it's more complicated than that.  For example, entertainment businesses (e.g. motion pictures) tend to do well in hard times.  So it's hard to say where the cap will be 18 months from now.

The fly in the ointment for the Celtics is if someone gives Rondo a fat offer sheet that must be matched. I believe that he will be a restricted free agent in June of 2010.

[BballTim]

The question is, does it make sense to worry about four years from now, or should you maximize your opportunity to win in the future?  I'm of the latter mindset:  since we have three elite players who are approaching the end of their primes, you need to do everything in your power to win now.  You don't worry about down the road, and you don't worry about trading them away.

I basically agree with you, but I don't like that dichotomy (you probably don't like it as well, it's just a dichotomy that can be perceived from that paragraph). It's very possible to have, for example, one of those players still in his prime and not be a serious contender anymore. In that case, and being that guy too old to build around, the right thing to do is to ship him away ASAP and get some value for him.

I agree with what Ron, Jon and others said about Red and the Big Three. Ainge makes it look very obvious - and, with the benefit of the hindsight, it probably is - but, at the time, it wasn't that clear.

Anyway, it's possible to keep an eye on the future without jeopardizing the priority that should be to win now.

Finally, I hope Wyc doesn't stop Ainge from trading Pierce if that's the right thing to do from a basketball standpoint, let alone Garnett or Allen.

  My feeling is that our "core" is KG first, Paul second. Ray is a great player, and we can't win without him, but he's the most replaceable of the three. If you were to replace KG you could only contend at this level with a couple of replacements like maybe Duncan or (possibly) Amare. Paul is more replaceable than KG but I think that there are a decent amount of SGs that you could replace Ray with and still win. If we could get a younger player who's a strong scorer and decent defender for Ray and Rondo continues to develop we can add another year or two to our window. By that time we might be able to do the same thing with Paul.

[Michael Anthony]

So I go to bed thinking about a trade idea last night, and work out the details in the morning. Next thing you know, 5 pages of thought provoking discussion around off-season moves, trading aging stars, and the salary cap. Good stuff all around.

Here is why you have to trade Allen AND Garnett at the same time. No team is going to swap an up and coming star for an over the hill star at the same position. Roy for Allen is not going to happen, so you have to cross positions.

I think Utah does the deal because Ray Allen is the best player for probably another year, Boozer will resign, and they will not have room/cap for Millsap. Getting rid of Kirilenko is just gravy, and the cost is a promising prospect (Koufos).

Chicago does this in a heartbeat.

Portland is the tricky one, because the deal does not make sense talent-wise. Deng is only one year older than Roy, and plays a solid game. Not an upgrade, but he is a good egg and replaces 80% of the production.

I think the real reason they make the move is for Greg Oden. If you look at what Garnett has done for Kendrick Perkins, and apply that to what he could do for Oden, you start to understand why Portland might be willing to part with Roy. If this team expects to make it to the promised land, it will be on the broad shoulders of their young center. To hasten his development, they need a leader like Garnett.

Maybe Chicago throws in a little sweetener, and maybe we forget about the pick, but those are just minor details.

As for Boston, the Roy for Allen switch at off-guard is about even now - and projects to be a major upgrade in a year or two. Done and done. Millsap is the real questionmark. Is his production this season an anomoly, or do his favorable comparison to Elton Brand project for the duration of his career? Can Rondo consistently give you 14+ ponits per game if he takes some of the shots left behind by KG's? Will Koufos exceed all expectations?

If the answers to those questions are yes, this new team can and will compete for championships well beyond the Pierce-Allen-Garnett window.