Author Topic: Should the Celts attempt to buy another first rounder?  (Read 17876 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Should the Celts attempt to buy another first rounder?
« Reply #45 on: April 27, 2010, 03:59:12 PM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 642

But if we are talking about Bill Walker, it is a different story.  He got a chance last year, and was in line to get a good deal of minutes this year, but then he got injured.  You can't blame Doc for that.

Doc does give young guys chances to prove themselves.  The question is whether they do anything with them. 

I wouldn't say that a total of 216 minutes over 29 games is a real chance for Walker to have proved himself last year.  Danny Ainge and Paul Pierce were both calling for Walker to get more minutes last year, and Doc continually paid lip service to the idea, but it didn't happen.

Why?  Because Doc would rather play the players who can immediately win games for him, rather than the guys who might be able to win games for him in the future.  It's an understandable philosophy, certainly.  It's also one that Doc certainly subscribes to.  Solid veterans are going to get minutes -- and in some cases, more minutes than they should be playing -- over rookies with higher upsides.  That's especially the case with a contending team.

When Walker played last year, he did not exactly light things on fire.  Yeah, he was not forcefed minutes, but I think for a rookie second round pick to get minutes, he needs to basically force the coach to play him by proving he belongs.  Walker never did that.

Re: Should the Celts attempt to buy another first rounder?
« Reply #46 on: April 27, 2010, 03:59:57 PM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 642
I'd buy the pick, but there has to be commitment from the organization(including the coaches) that they will develop these players. Makes no sense to pick players and then let them rot on the bench. Nevertheless, this is a deep draft, so Danny could hypothetically get three serviceable players in this draft if they buy the Atlanta pick.

Whomever we get however should be integrated into the rotation at least through the regular season. You don't have to sacrifice wins to get some minutes from one player or maybe two during the season.

If the players are good enough to crack the rotation on a contender, then they should play. This year's draft appears to be full of good potential.

Guys like Giddens and Walker just weren't good enough to out play Tony Allen, Daniels and Eddie House. I expect and hope that the next guy drafted is better than those two. And he should be at #19.


I think force-feeding a rookie minutes is sometimes okay.  Take San Antonio.  If Doc had been coaching, is there any doubt that George Hill (last season) and DeJuan Blair (this season) would have begun the season with a strong presumption against them getting minutes? 

I think in situations where Doc has viable alternatives, he's going to be hesitant to play rookies right out of the gate.  While I understand that philosophy, it's also sometimes good to force-feed young guys minutes, so they'll be ready for later in the season.

I don't think that is a fair assumption at all.  I think there is plenty of evidence (see Glen Davis) that Doc would play a big man like Blair as a rookie, if he showed he knew the system, and would not be a major kink. 

And it is really tough to say what Doc would have done with Hill, since he has not had a smart young PG of Hills talent level.  The only one who was close was Rondo, and he was rail thin when he came in, and not nearly as well rounded as Hill was as a rookie.

When Doc has veteran alternatives, I think rookies are going to see their minutes limited.  Yes, BBD got some minutes as a rookie, but who was the viable alternative at backup center / backup power forward?  It's not like Doc had a veteran he could slot in, especially with Pollard injured.

True.  But is that all that different from just about any NBA coach of a winning team (as in a team that is not just trying to tank and develop young guys)?

Its not like the Spurs had a ton more options than Blair and Hill.

The Spurs could have easily given Blair's and Hill's minutes to McDyess and Mason, Jr.  I'm fairly certain, having watched Doc, that that's the route he would have gone.

Well, I respectfully disagree. 

Re: Should the Celts attempt to buy another first rounder?
« Reply #47 on: April 27, 2010, 04:00:49 PM »

Offline Roy Hobbs

  • In The Rafters
  • The Natural
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33333
  • Tommy Points: 6430
  • Doc could learn a thing or two from Norman Dale

But if we are talking about Bill Walker, it is a different story.  He got a chance last year, and was in line to get a good deal of minutes this year, but then he got injured.  You can't blame Doc for that.

Doc does give young guys chances to prove themselves.  The question is whether they do anything with them. 

I wouldn't say that a total of 216 minutes over 29 games is a real chance for Walker to have proved himself last year.  Danny Ainge and Paul Pierce were both calling for Walker to get more minutes last year, and Doc continually paid lip service to the idea, but it didn't happen.

Why?  Because Doc would rather play the players who can immediately win games for him, rather than the guys who might be able to win games for him in the future.  It's an understandable philosophy, certainly.  It's also one that Doc certainly subscribes to.  Solid veterans are going to get minutes -- and in some cases, more minutes than they should be playing -- over rookies with higher upsides.  That's especially the case with a contending team.

When Walker played last year, he did not exactly light things on fire.  Yeah, he was not forcefed minutes, but I think for a rookie second round pick to get minutes, he needs to basically force the coach to play him by proving he belongs.  Walker never did that.

Right, so we're back to my original point:  on a contending team, Doc isn't going to give a rookie minutes if he's got a viable veteran alternative.

All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino

Portland CrotoNats:  2009 CB Draft Champions

Re: Should the Celts attempt to buy another first rounder?
« Reply #48 on: April 27, 2010, 04:03:06 PM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 642

But if we are talking about Bill Walker, it is a different story.  He got a chance last year, and was in line to get a good deal of minutes this year, but then he got injured.  You can't blame Doc for that.

Doc does give young guys chances to prove themselves.  The question is whether they do anything with them.  

I wouldn't say that a total of 216 minutes over 29 games is a real chance for Walker to have proved himself last year.  Danny Ainge and Paul Pierce were both calling for Walker to get more minutes last year, and Doc continually paid lip service to the idea, but it didn't happen.

Why?  Because Doc would rather play the players who can immediately win games for him, rather than the guys who might be able to win games for him in the future.  It's an understandable philosophy, certainly.  It's also one that Doc certainly subscribes to.  Solid veterans are going to get minutes -- and in some cases, more minutes than they should be playing -- over rookies with higher upsides.  That's especially the case with a contending team.

When Walker played last year, he did not exactly light things on fire.  Yeah, he was not forcefed minutes, but I think for a rookie second round pick to get minutes, he needs to basically force the coach to play him by proving he belongs.  Walker never did that.

Right, so we're back to my original point:  on a contending team, Doc isn't going to give a rookie minutes if he's got a viable veteran alternative.

And again, I disagree.  He won't forcefeed them minutes, but if they prove they belong, and that they can be a two-way player who can produce immediately, better than the veteran alternative, then I have no doubt Doc would play them.

And I will add, that I have no interest in cheering for a team that force feeds second round rookies minutes, when they have not earned them.

Re: Should the Celts attempt to buy another first rounder?
« Reply #49 on: April 27, 2010, 04:07:22 PM »

Offline Roy Hobbs

  • In The Rafters
  • The Natural
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33333
  • Tommy Points: 6430
  • Doc could learn a thing or two from Norman Dale

And again, I disagree.  He won't forcefeed them minutes, but if they prove they belong, and that they can be a two-way player who can produce immediately, better than the veteran alternative, then I have no doubt Doc would play them.

How many rookies come in right away who can produce immediately on both ends of the floor, better than a veteran alternative?  Most rookies need a little bit of on-the-job training, and the most vital experience comes in games.

I mean, of course any coach is going to play a rookie if he's already better on both ends of the floor than the veteran he's replacing.  However, sometimes players need to be force-fed some minutes to get them ready for later on, which was my original point.  Doc hasn't done that when he's had a veteran alternative (especially since we've been a contender), and sometimes, I think that hurts the team long-term.

All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino

Portland CrotoNats:  2009 CB Draft Champions

Re: Should the Celts attempt to buy another first rounder?
« Reply #50 on: April 27, 2010, 04:15:35 PM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 642

And again, I disagree.  He won't forcefeed them minutes, but if they prove they belong, and that they can be a two-way player who can produce immediately, better than the veteran alternative, then I have no doubt Doc would play them.

How many rookies come in right away who can produce immediately on both ends of the floor, better than a veteran alternative?  Most rookies need a little bit of on-the-job training, and the most vital experience comes in games.

I mean, of course any coach is going to play a rookie if he's already better on both ends of the floor than the veteran he's replacing.  However, sometimes players need to be force-fed some minutes to get them ready for later on, which was my original point.  Doc hasn't done that when he's had a veteran alternative (especially since we've been a contender), and sometimes, I think that hurts the team long-term.

Well, there needs to be some balance there.  We are talking about mostly second round picks here.

At the very least, they need to know the system enough to not completely mess it up.  That is why Davis was in the rotation before Leon Powe...he picked up the system quickly, and was able to step right in.  And they also need to be able to do something offensively.

When Walker was on the floor, he looked completely lost, and his shot was nowhere near where it is right now. 

I just think we are making these assumptions about Doc based on players with huge holes in their game, who simply were not ready.

The other obvious one is Ryan Gomes.  He WAS forcefed minutes early in his rookie season, and he was downright terrible.  Couldn't get a shot up, and looked like a total deer in headlights.  So Doc put him on the bench for a few months, and let him learn the system, and become more accustomed to NBA basketball, and when he was reinserted into the rotation, he was ready, and very productive.


Re: Should the Celts attempt to buy another first rounder?
« Reply #51 on: April 27, 2010, 04:23:22 PM »

Offline Roy Hobbs

  • In The Rafters
  • The Natural
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33333
  • Tommy Points: 6430
  • Doc could learn a thing or two from Norman Dale

The other obvious one is Ryan Gomes.  He WAS forcefed minutes early in his rookie season, and he was downright terrible.  Couldn't get a shot up, and looked like a total deer in headlights.  So Doc put him on the bench for a few months, and let him learn the system, and become more accustomed to NBA basketball, and when he was reinserted into the rotation, he was ready, and very productive.



Let's be clear with Gomes:  Doc didn't voluntarily insert him into the rotation.  Rather, that was necessitated by injuries to both Big Al and Perk.  Without those injuries, one wonders if Gomes would have ever seen more than the DNP-CDs that he was getting leading up to that time.

Again, I'm not attempting to bash Doc, but he's a coach that prefers vets.  I'm sure he'd tell you the same thing (and he's made similar statements to the press plenty of times).  Give Doc the choice between a solid vet and a talented but underdeveloped rookie, and he'll take the vet every time.

All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino

Portland CrotoNats:  2009 CB Draft Champions

Re: Should the Celts attempt to buy another first rounder?
« Reply #52 on: April 27, 2010, 04:25:01 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48120
  • Tommy Points: 8794
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
Wasn't Glen Davis a rookie and second year player that contributed for this contending team when viable veteran alternatives were available to be played like Scal, Powe, Pollard, Brown and Moore?

I don't think Davis was force fed minutes, I think he earned them and is a better player today because of it.

Re: Should the Celts attempt to buy another first rounder?
« Reply #53 on: April 27, 2010, 04:29:36 PM »

Offline Fan from VT

  • NCE
  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4205
  • Tommy Points: 777

And again, I disagree.  He won't forcefeed them minutes, but if they prove they belong, and that they can be a two-way player who can produce immediately, better than the veteran alternative, then I have no doubt Doc would play them.

How many rookies come in right away who can produce immediately on both ends of the floor, better than a veteran alternative?  Most rookies need a little bit of on-the-job training, and the most vital experience comes in games.

I mean, of course any coach is going to play a rookie if he's already better on both ends of the floor than the veteran he's replacing.  However, sometimes players need to be force-fed some minutes to get them ready for later on, which was my original point.  Doc hasn't done that when he's had a veteran alternative (especially since we've been a contender), and sometimes, I think that hurts the team long-term.

Well, there needs to be some balance there.  We are talking about mostly second round picks here.

At the very least, they need to know the system enough to not completely mess it up.  That is why Davis was in the rotation before Leon Powe...he picked up the system quickly, and was able to step right in.  And they also need to be able to do something offensively.

When Walker was on the floor, he looked completely lost, and his shot was nowhere near where it is right now. 

I just think we are making these assumptions about Doc based on players with huge holes in their game, who simply were not ready.

The other obvious one is Ryan Gomes.  He WAS forcefed minutes early in his rookie season, and he was downright terrible.  Couldn't get a shot up, and looked like a total deer in headlights.  So Doc put him on the bench for a few months, and let him learn the system, and become more accustomed to NBA basketball, and when he was reinserted into the rotation, he was ready, and very productive.




I tend to agree with Roy here. I find the attitude that "a rookie can't play until he proves he knows everything and won't mess up or we have no other options" to be a dead-end strategy and is more symptomatic of a "well in my day we had to earn it, the vets on the team had to earn it, and rookies haven't earned it yet" attitude, rather than an outcome based strategy of "what will give us the best 12 man roster come playoff time and in subsequent years, even if it's not 'traditional.'"

There is no way the Spurs wouldn't be playing the way they are if Hill especially (and Blair, as well) hadn't gotten as good as they did. Do they get there if Popovic only plays the ones that know the system the best? that won't mess up one defensive assignment? doubt it. If Doc were coaching the Spurs, are we to believe that Duncan, Manu, and Parker are limited to 31, 29, 31 minutes? That Blair plays 82 games at 18 per, while McDyess plays 21 and Bonner just 18? And Hill plays 78 games at 29 per, while bogans and mason are at just 19mpg? That he cuts Finley to make sure the best current players are getting time?

I don't see it. Not based on Doc's history.

As for Gomes, maybe it was the early playing time that got him ready to play later in the season?

Re: Should the Celts attempt to buy another first rounder?
« Reply #54 on: April 27, 2010, 04:32:29 PM »

Offline Roy Hobbs

  • In The Rafters
  • The Natural
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33333
  • Tommy Points: 6430
  • Doc could learn a thing or two from Norman Dale
Wasn't Glen Davis a rookie and second year player that contributed for this contending team when viable veteran alternatives were available to be played like Scal, Powe, Pollard, Brown and Moore?

I don't think Davis was force fed minutes, I think he earned them and is a better player today because of it.

Scal isn't really an alternative, especially for the role of rebounding power forward. 

Powe was in the same boat as BBD, and can't in good faith be called a "veteran". 

Pollard was injured for most of the year. 

Moore wasn't on the team when BBD was a rookie, and Mikki was probably given more minutes than his performance dictated, solely because he was vet.

Brown played more playoff minutes per game, and in significantly more playoff games, than BBD did.

All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino

Portland CrotoNats:  2009 CB Draft Champions

Re: Should the Celts attempt to buy another first rounder?
« Reply #55 on: April 27, 2010, 04:39:53 PM »

Offline albert

  • Jrue Holiday
  • Posts: 300
  • Tommy Points: 39
  • ubuntu.
I think one of the reasons Doc didn't play the rookies this year is because he was thinking about not coaching next year. It would seem to make more sense, since he's been part of a "full cycle" of development to trades to championship seasons. Maybe he wants to leave with a legacy of winning here, so he's aiming for this year only for the championship window (cause it probably ain't gonna happen next year).
Bleed Green. What does it mean?

Re: Should the Celts attempt to buy another first rounder?
« Reply #56 on: April 27, 2010, 04:45:21 PM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 642

The other obvious one is Ryan Gomes.  He WAS forcefed minutes early in his rookie season, and he was downright terrible.  Couldn't get a shot up, and looked like a total deer in headlights.  So Doc put him on the bench for a few months, and let him learn the system, and become more accustomed to NBA basketball, and when he was reinserted into the rotation, he was ready, and very productive.



Let's be clear with Gomes:  Doc didn't voluntarily insert him into the rotation.  Rather, that was necessitated by injuries to both Big Al and Perk.  Without those injuries, one wonders if Gomes would have ever seen more than the DNP-CDs that he was getting leading up to that time.

Again, I'm not attempting to bash Doc, but he's a coach that prefers vets.  I'm sure he'd tell you the same thing (and he's made similar statements to the press plenty of times).  Give Doc the choice between a solid vet and a talented but underdeveloped rookie, and he'll take the vet every time.

Well, that is all hindsight.  Doc was on WEEI several days before those injuries forced his hand, and said that he was going to work Gomes into the rotation, because he was tearing it up in practice.  Now, he may never have followed through with that, had there not been the injuries, but there is no way to know. 

And I am not saying that Doc doesn't prefer vets, of course he does.  But I also think he gets a very bad wrap at times as someone who never plays young players, when it absolutely is not true.  And I think it is a gross overexageration to say that he will always choose the vet over the rookie.  Because I think with him, it has everything to do with performance. 

Yes, he will not play a rookie who does not perform well in practice, and the short stints they see in games.  They have to show him that they deserve to be out there before they get the minutes.  But I would argue that that is the same with 90% of the coaches in the NBA, including Greg Popovich.

Re: Should the Celts attempt to buy another first rounder?
« Reply #57 on: April 27, 2010, 05:03:22 PM »

Offline amenhotep04

  • Jrue Holiday
  • Posts: 386
  • Tommy Points: 39
I really think to make any statements about 'earning' minutes on this team has to be framed correctly. I'm pretty sure none of us know what Doc's criteria are. To assume that players don't play simply because they are not earning them is based on an assumption that those on the court are earning minutes. By Doc's standard's probably. But we do not know what they are. I do know that few players can have little practice, sit on the bench for a month or two, and then come into a game and play effectively. That's asking a lot of just about any player.

Bottom line is that can players in the current system (whatever that may be) earn minutes from practice? And are they allowed to screw up on the court a time or two before being relegated to the bench again? Providing of course there are no injuries to regular rotation players.

My feeling is 'no'. But without knowing for sure, I guess I'll wait for the book to come out. With all the talk about Danny's drafting abilities, it appears there has to be some kind of conclusion; either Danny has drafted relatively poorly the past two to three years, or the team hasn't developed players effectively. Maybe some combination of the two.

Re: Should the Celts attempt to buy another first rounder?
« Reply #58 on: April 27, 2010, 05:08:01 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48120
  • Tommy Points: 8794
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
Wasn't Glen Davis a rookie and second year player that contributed for this contending team when viable veteran alternatives were available to be played like Scal, Powe, Pollard, Brown and Moore?

I don't think Davis was force fed minutes, I think he earned them and is a better player today because of it.

Scal isn't really an alternative, especially for the role of rebounding power forward. 

Powe was in the same boat as BBD, and can't in good faith be called a "veteran". 

Pollard was injured for most of the year. 

Moore wasn't on the team when BBD was a rookie, and Mikki was probably given more minutes than his performance dictated, solely because he was vet.

Brown played more playoff minutes per game, and in significantly more playoff games, than BBD did.
On the one hand you dismiss Powe as a vet in his 2nd year but then dismiss Moore as a viable alternative because he wasn't around Davis as a rookie. He was around Davis as a 2nd year player which, according to your own logic is as much like being a rookie as to be able to discard you as a viable veteran presence.

Powe was also around Davis in his second year and was a third year veteran. Does that now qualify him as a viable veteran option? Davis also didn't play the exclusive role of rebounding PF. Last year he played the role of outside shooting perimeter big. A role Scal is suited for. So doesn't that make him a viable veteran option for last year?

Also, Pollard played all of November and December with the 2007-08 Celtics playing in 16 games during that stretch. Davis played in 22 games during those same months. I think it is fair to say that during that time, Pollard was definitely a viable during that time period and yet Davis got playing time.

Re: Should the Celts attempt to buy another first rounder?
« Reply #59 on: April 27, 2010, 05:41:28 PM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
Absolutely, especially for three million dollars - which is chump change in today's NBA.  A team can never have enough draft picks, in particular ones in the first round.  This year's draft looks both talented and deep, but I worry that we will either:

-  Get a very talented player that Doc refuses to play.
-  Or, waste our draft picks on "role players" instead of a future star. 

All in all though, it still comes back to Danny - who in my view, has been either hit or miss in the draft.  For example, after last year's draft, I think he said that he would have selected George Hill or Courtney Lee, but they were gone before our turn.  Here's my problem with this - if Ainge felt so strongly about Hill or Lee, why didn't he find a way to trade up and draft one of them?; and the year before that, he took JR Giddens with the 30th pick, when Bill Walker, Chris Douglas-Roberts, Deandre Jordan, and Mario Chalmers were still available.  Now I know that the aforementioned players haven't turned into great players or anything of much substance (at least, not yet), but at least they're still in the league.  In 2008, I remember pleading in front of the TV when it was our turn for Ainge to draft Bill Walker, and when he drafted Giddens, I went "Who?".  It only got worse after that - he was already 23 years old.  I don't believe many 23 and older players coming out of college have turned into anything special.

As of right now, we own the 19th and 52 picks, and I want to know - who would you draft with each pick?  I've been looking at the prospects online for quite some time and still can't make up my mind.  Then again, I don't have the information that Danny has - I'm just going from scouting reports and YouTube clips.  Does anyone think that Willie Warren, Lance Stephenson, Paul George, Avery Bradley, or Ed Davis will be there for us (although, admittingly, each seems to be high risk high reward)?  Of those listed, Stephenson is the most probable, and he has character/maturity issues (of course, so did Tyreke Evans, and Danny was high on him, and apparently for good reason).  What does everyone think about Dominique Jones?  As for the 52 pick, would anyone object to Omar Samhan or Kenneth Faried (although they might not be there either)?  My head hurts.