If you want to go that far back, you should do an apples to apples and compare Danny's first 5 years to Pop's, starting in 94 and considering the fact that he inherited a team with a franchise center on it.
Fair enough. Danny started with a Hall of Fame forward, which isn't such a terrible building block. I'd say Popovich's performance compares favorably.
Or you could even start from when Buford took over in 2002.
Not a bad place to start but clearly not a David Robinson in his prime level of player.
Sure. I'll grant that. I think clearly is kind of a stretch, considering Robinson had only won 2 first round series before Pop came along. They'll probably both fall in the 30-50 range of greatest players ever by the time Pierce retires.
Robinson won an MVP and finished top 3 in the voting 4 other times. He was making all nba teams over players like Hakeem and Ewing and Shaq. Did you actually see Robinson play? Because, frankly, I hated him as a player but there's no way he's on the same level as PP.
Yes, I did see Robinson play. Pierce is a first ballot Hall of Famer in his own right and has a laundry list of credentials, but sure, Robinson was better.
Given all that, I still prefer Popovich's run (and definitely Buford's run) to Ainge's.
Starting off with just Paul Pierce on your roster doesn't excuse the Mark Blount contract, the Ricky Davis trade, the Sebastian Telfair trade, at the beginning of his tenure. Starting without a Hall of Fame center doesn't mean you have to acquire guys like Blount, Telfair, and Ricky. Even by 90's-00's Celtics standards, those are three brutal moves that I wouldn't recommend regardless of who you start with.
Ainge's early years have a lot more misses than hits (and some pretty severe misses), David Robinson or not.
Did you catch any of Robinson's prime, or did you just catch the end of his career? The fact that you thought Robinson and PP were fairly similar players is hard to believe. But beyond that, not having a player like Robinson does explain much of what Ainge did. Give him a franchise center just entering his prime and there's no reason to expect him to make the same type of moves than he did with the roster that he had. As for Pop, if he hadn't won the Duncan lottery he'd never be known as a superstar coach or gm.
I caught his prime. Did you catch Pierce's prime (which Ainge squandered part)? Robinson was better, which I have agreed with more than a few times, so you are arguing with yourself on that point. Pierce was a fine building block too, in fact, he is still here, and headed for the Hall of Fame. Still, Robinson barely won in the playoffs before Pop and went to the Conference Finals immediately as Pop stepped in as GM, if we measure players, teams, and execs by playoff success.
Yes, I saw Pierce's prime. I just missed the part where he was fairly comparable to Robinson, which was your original assertion.
Regardless, I disagree with the assertion that lacking a franchise center forces someone to trade for Sebastian Telfair or sign Mark Blount to a monster extension. Making your team worse because you lack a franchise center defies all logic. Even the most green tinted glasses, which you seem to be sporting, would have to see that this was a bad move for the roster that he had (or the roster that anyone had).
First of all, while the Blount signing was a mistake, he didn't sign a "monster contract", he signed the same MLE contract that other teams were offering him. But it's pretty silly to claim that the fact that the Celts not having a franchise level big man didn't figure into the moves Danny was making. Unless you have a Jordan or a James it's very hard to win without one, and the bulk of the mistakes gm's make are in the pursuit of big men when they don't have one.
I didn't claim that not having a franchise caliber big man didn't factor into Danny's moves or any other GMs. I think it is silly to put words into people's mouths and then argue those words.
Mark Blount's extension was an overpay of about $35 million considering he is a league minimum caliber big man. If others were offering a similar amount, the prudent move would've been to let others make that mistake. So the Sebastian Telfair trade and the Ricky Davis trade were made because of desperation in lacking a big man? Danny's list of mistakes to begin his tenure are longer than you care to remember. I still fail to see how lacking a franchise center is motivation for making your team worse and its salary structure worse.
David Robinson or no David Robinson, Telfair, Davis, Blount were all terrible moves.
If your answer to lacking a franchise big man is to acquire 3 of the people who least embody what it means to be a Celtic out of desperation, I'd say that is what is silly.
Regardless, this could go on forever. When comparing the two crganizations, what do you personally feel the Celtics do better and what do you feel the Spurs do better? Cap management, drafting, international scouting, coaching, etc....? Touting our recent playoff success and their lack thereof, why is that? What organizational flaws do you see in San Antonio or in Boston? Less snark and more analytical thinking would be fun.