Author Topic: What's the average rebuild time?  (Read 1209 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: What's the average rebuild time?
« Reply #15 on: February 18, 2013, 04:30:34 PM »

Online erisred

  • Jeff Green
  • Posts: 573
  • Tommy Points: 32
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.

Re: What's the average rebuild time?
« Reply #16 on: February 18, 2013, 04:30:41 PM »

Online LarBrd33

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10946
  • Tommy Points: 661
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. 


Re: What's the average rebuild time?
« Reply #17 on: February 18, 2013, 04:30:52 PM »

Offline Onslaught

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1535
  • Tommy Points: 136
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.
Peace through Tyranny

Re: What's the average rebuild time?
« Reply #18 on: February 18, 2013, 04:54:45 PM »

Online Moranis

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9700
  • Tommy Points: 415
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.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2013, 05:00:53 PM by Moranis »
2014 Pick 2 Draft 18th pick of 20
Sacramento Kings
Starters - Isaiah Thomas, Eric Gordon, Jimmy Butler, Dirk Nowitzki, Demarcus Cousins
Bench - Kendall Marshall, Michael Carter-Williams, Vince Carter, Wesley Johnson, Marcus Morris, Miles Plumlee, Nerlens Noel

Re: What's the average rebuild time?
« Reply #19 on: February 18, 2013, 04:59:58 PM »

Online Moranis

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9700
  • Tommy Points: 415
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.
2014 Pick 2 Draft 18th pick of 20
Sacramento Kings
Starters - Isaiah Thomas, Eric Gordon, Jimmy Butler, Dirk Nowitzki, Demarcus Cousins
Bench - Kendall Marshall, Michael Carter-Williams, Vince Carter, Wesley Johnson, Marcus Morris, Miles Plumlee, Nerlens Noel

Re: What's the average rebuild time?
« Reply #20 on: February 18, 2013, 05:22:37 PM »

Offline dreamgreen

  • Jeff Green
  • Posts: 653
  • Tommy Points: 36
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 **** 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. 

Re: What's the average rebuild time?
« Reply #21 on: February 18, 2013, 05:41:44 PM »

Offline PhoSita

  • Antoine Walker
  • *****
  • Posts: 5133
  • Tommy Points: 328
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.
Quote from: BBallTim
Parker isn't going to score 30 ppg and rebuilds generally take longer than 1 year. Relax.

Re: What's the average rebuild time?
« Reply #22 on: February 18, 2013, 05:54:16 PM »

Offline ManUp

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7935
  • Tommy Points: 225
  • Rondo doesn't believe in easy buckets...
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.

Re: What's the average rebuild time?
« Reply #23 on: February 18, 2013, 06:06:08 PM »

Offline SHAQATTACK

  • NCE
  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9648
  • Tommy Points: 506
1100 years for Celtics

10 days for the Lakers

Re: What's the average rebuild time?
« Reply #24 on: February 18, 2013, 06:09:31 PM »

Offline Lord of Mikawa

  • Rajon Rondo
  • Posts: 882
  • Tommy Points: 66
  • Anti-Lakers&Anti-Heat
It depends on chance really. Unless you are the Lakers....
Signed to a 6 year $0 contract with the Celtics Blog forum!

Re: What's the average rebuild time?
« Reply #25 on: February 18, 2013, 06:16:21 PM »

Online Neurotic Guy

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7026
  • Tommy Points: 920
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.

 

Re: What's the average rebuild time?
« Reply #26 on: February 18, 2013, 06:33:19 PM »

Offline PhoSita

  • Antoine Walker
  • *****
  • Posts: 5133
  • Tommy Points: 328

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.
Quote from: BBallTim
Parker isn't going to score 30 ppg and rebuilds generally take longer than 1 year. Relax.

Re: What's the average rebuild time?
« Reply #27 on: February 18, 2013, 06:36:31 PM »

Online erisred

  • Jeff Green
  • Posts: 573
  • Tommy Points: 32
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.

Re: What's the average rebuild time?
« Reply #28 on: February 18, 2013, 06:53:22 PM »

Online LooseCannon

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9493
  • Tommy Points: 721
If the Celtics have an above-average front office, should the team be expected to take less time than average to rebuild?
"The worst thing that ever happened in sports was sports radio, and the internet is sports radio on steroids with lower IQs.” -- Brian Burke, former Toronto Maple Leafs senior adviser, at the 2013 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference

Re: What's the average rebuild time?
« Reply #29 on: February 18, 2013, 07:06:39 PM »

Offline danglertx

  • Rajon Rondo
  • Posts: 773
  • Tommy Points: 70
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.


 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsBlog Forums.

Welcome to CelticsBlog