Multiple superstars needed to win an NBA championship (article Elrod Enchilada)

[lightspeed5]

That's why I hate this idea of tanking for an opportunity at the lottery pick

tanking means having a gm form a bad team, not purposely losing games. we have a bad team.

[Eric M VAN]

To speak to what was stated in the original post RE: So how do we get them?

I'd say just the way Ainge got the last 2 superstars to pair with the one he already had.

Gather assets, realize that first round picks will always be more attractive before they are used, hope one falls into a lottery position and pry loose someone from a team looking to start a rebuilding process.

That's how Allen ended up here and how Garnett ended up here.

Those shiny new toys (draft picks) on the shelf always will look attractive to a GM trying to extricate themselves from
having Mr Big on the team while trying to build around them.

It's what Morey did in Houston...shiny shiny new cheap toys.

I think Phosita nailed it

Still, the fantasy that the Celtics could sign a free agent or duplicate the Kevin Garnett trade, without a top pick in hand, will persist.

[Celtics18]

Unfortunately this gets us nowhere on these forums because the debate at the heart of these types of discussions is still the question of whether we ought to consider Rajon Rondo merely a complementary star, or instead a bona fide superstar.

Elrod's rankings tend to suggest that Rondo is in the former category, but since his points system revolves around subjective voting (although the voters are arguably better informed than the majority of us forum-goers) and results, those who believe Rondo is a superstar will find reasons to disregard Rondo's place on the list.

The other thing is that Elrod's article doesn't address how these teams acquired their franchise superstars.  I'd guess that the vast majority got them through the draft, and almost all of the remainder acquired them by trading lottery-level talents that they acquired in the draft.  Still, the fantasy that the Celtics could sign a free agent or duplicate the Kevin Garnett trade, without a top pick in hand, will persist.

Lebron James, Shaquille O'Neal, Dirk Nowitzki, Paul Pierce, Kobe Bryant, Tony Parker and Kevin Garnett are all star players who have been either the best or second best player on a championship team who were not drafted in the top five by the teams that they won a championship with. 

There is evidence that there are other ways to get a superstar than picking him up in the top half of the draft lottery.

Of course, the alternate fantasy is that all we have to do is tank this season, and we are guaranteed a top pick from this year's draft who is in turn guaranteed to be a platinum level Celtic superstar for the next fifteen years, while leading us to multiple championships. 

[LilRip]

Unfortunately this gets us nowhere on these forums because the debate at the heart of these types of discussions is still the question of whether we ought to consider Rajon Rondo merely a complementary star, or instead a bona fide superstar.

Elrod's rankings tend to suggest that Rondo is in the former category, but since his points system revolves around subjective voting (although the voters are arguably better informed than the majority of us forum-goers) and results, those who believe Rondo is a superstar will find reasons to disregard Rondo's place on the list.

The other thing is that Elrod's article doesn't address how these teams acquired their franchise superstars.  I'd guess that the vast majority got them through the draft, and almost all of the remainder acquired them by trading lottery-level talents that they acquired in the draft.  Still, the fantasy that the Celtics could sign a free agent or duplicate the Kevin Garnett trade, without a top pick in hand, will persist.

Yeah, just started reading the article, but already MVP voting is incredibly subjective: Nash getting MVPs for playing half the game (offense) at a slightly lower level than CP was doing at the same time at the same position, for example, simply due to the TEAM outperforming expectations. Rose getting MVP despite there being better players that their teams WOULD NOT trade for Rose simply because he was the best player on a surprise team. Often MVP votes go up after a player is the key player on a title team, because now that player has proven they are a superstar because only superstars win so if they win they must be a superstar so now we can vote for them...

if you'll read on, you'll see Nash at a lower tier than CP 

the merit of the list in the article isn't in its rankings (e.g MJ is better than LBJ), but more in its tierings (MJ and LBJ are in the upper echelon of superstars).

TP to the OP for the link.

[LilRip]

I guess the discussion point of such a topic is how the best way to get one of these type of players is. Have a look at which category Rondo falls in to and ask yourself does pairing Rondo with Aldridge or Kevin Love seem more realistic than a top 3 pick?
We don't have to argue on what is the better method, just which one is more possible in getting one of these sure fire superstars.

i don't think these options are mutually exclusive, but if i had to prioritize, i think the C's should try and get a top 3 pick this coming draft first (which is possible imo given the roster). Then, if we don't land the player (or pick) we want, i think the C's have enough assets to land someone like Kevin Love via trade.

not thrilled with the idea of moving forward with Rondo as our best player though. I think he'd be astounding as a 2nd or 3rd best player.

[LarBrd33]

The good news is that we already have a player on Elrod's list.

From what I can see, the only reason Rondo is on that list at #60 is because he was all-defensive 1st team in 2010 when we made the Finals.  Rondo has never made 1st or 2nd team All-NBA.  Elrod had Rondo listed as our best player on the 2010 runner-up.   For my money, that's nonsense.  KG was still our best player in 2010.   

This article was interesting, but I've basically already gone through this exercise a handful of times on a lesser scale.  Yes, you need superstars to win a title.  It's no coincidence that every champion has a top player or two.


At the most, Rondo is listed as a "bronze level" Superstar in this article and that's based on his all-defensive awards.  According to his article... how many teams have won titles with a best player as a bronze level superstar?  From what I can see... only ONE team.  THe 1979 Sonics... and they had two bronze level superstars... not just one.

In other words... History shows that we will never win a title with Rondo as our best player.  Hence why we're tanking this year (to try to land a proper superstar) and probably dumping Rondo for prospects before the year is out.

[PhoSita]

Unfortunately this gets us nowhere on these forums because the debate at the heart of these types of discussions is still the question of whether we ought to consider Rajon Rondo merely a complementary star, or instead a bona fide superstar.

Elrod's rankings tend to suggest that Rondo is in the former category, but since his points system revolves around subjective voting (although the voters are arguably better informed than the majority of us forum-goers) and results, those who believe Rondo is a superstar will find reasons to disregard Rondo's place on the list.

The other thing is that Elrod's article doesn't address how these teams acquired their franchise superstars.  I'd guess that the vast majority got them through the draft, and almost all of the remainder acquired them by trading lottery-level talents that they acquired in the draft.  Still, the fantasy that the Celtics could sign a free agent or duplicate the Kevin Garnett trade, without a top pick in hand, will persist.

Lebron James, Shaquille O'Neal, Dirk Nowitzki, Paul Pierce, Kobe Bryant, Tony Parker and Kevin Garnett are all star players who have been either the best or second best player on a championship team who were not drafted in the top five by the teams that they won a championship with. 

There is evidence that there are other ways to get a superstar than picking him up in the top half of the draft lottery.

Of course, the alternate fantasy is that all we have to do is tank this season, and we are guaranteed a top pick from this year's draft who is in turn guaranteed to be a platinum level Celtic superstar for the next fifteen years, while leading us to multiple championships.

We've discussed this in the past, but I don't think it's really that binary.

The argument for tanking is not based on the premise that IF we tank THEN we will get a franchise superstar in the draft.

The argument, at least as I try to make it, is that our best chance of getting such a player is to select in the top 5-10 of the draft.  It's possible to do it other ways, but it's far more difficult.

[BballTim]

The good news is that we already have a player on Elrod's list.

  It's also worth pointing out that if you cut off the careers of all of the players at about the age Rondo was after the 2012 playoffs the number of them with more appearances than Rondo on the best or 2nd best on teams that went that far would drop dramatically.

Happens to any player who benefits from being the young guy carried by 3 HOFers. Not surprising or very indicative of Rondo himself.

  I'm not talking about 2008. Because that's about the last time those three carried Rondo through the playoffs.

[PhoSita]

To speak to what was stated in the original post RE: So how do we get them?

I'd say just the way Ainge got the last 2 superstars to pair with the one he already had.

Gather assets, realize that first round picks will always be more attractive before they are used, hope one falls into a lottery position and pry loose someone from a team looking to start a rebuilding process.

That's how Allen ended up here and how Garnett ended up here.

Those shiny new toys (draft picks) on the shelf always will look attractive to a GM trying to extricate themselves from
having Mr Big on the team while trying to build around them.

It's what Morey did in Houston...shiny shiny new cheap toys.

I think Phosita nailed it

Still, the fantasy that the Celtics could sign a free agent or duplicate the Kevin Garnett trade, without a top pick in hand, will persist.

I don't think you understood my point.


My point was that the KG trade was a result of a special set of circumstances that is unlikely to repeat itself.

I'd say the same thing of what Daryl Morey managed to do in Houston.

I see both of those situations not as templates but as lessons: good GMs must be flexible and prepared to pounce when the opportunity to acquire a star becomes available.

Nevertheless, I think that though most GMs understand that to be the case, they would still tell you that the simplest, most effective way to get the capital, the resources necessary to take risks, make bold moves, and build a team up to contention is to get high draft picks, which virtually requires your team to be bad.

For example, I think Morey could have executed his plan more quickly if he hadn't been limited by an ownership that expected him to field a competitive team every season.

[BballTim]

The other thing is that Elrod's article doesn't address how these teams acquired their franchise superstars.  I'd guess that the vast majority got them through the draft, and almost all of the remainder acquired them by trading lottery-level talents that they acquired in the draft.  Still, the fantasy that the Celtics could sign a free agent or duplicate the Kevin Garnett trade, without a top pick in hand, will persist.

  The "fantasy" exists because, by my rough count, close to half of the players in the "top players" lists since 2000 are outside of your "vast majority".

[BballTim]

The good news is that we already have a player on Elrod's list.

  It's also worth pointing out that if you cut off the careers of all of the players at about the age Rondo was after the 2012 playoffs the number of them with more appearances than Rondo on the best or 2nd best on teams that went that far would drop dramatically.

i disagree that this is worth pointing out. well, maybe if KG and Pierce were lesser stars....

  How far have those two taken the Celts when Rondo wasn't healthy?

[BballTim]

The good news is that we already have a player on Elrod's list.

From what I can see, the only reason Rondo is on that list at #60 is because he was all-defensive 1st team in 2010 when we made the Finals.  Rondo has never made 1st or 2nd team All-NBA.  Elrod had Rondo listed as our best player on the 2010 runner-up.   For my money, that's nonsense.  KG was still our best player in 2010.   

This article was interesting, but I've basically already gone through this exercise a handful of times on a lesser scale.  Yes, you need superstars to win a title.  It's no coincidence that every champion has a top player or two.


At the most, Rondo is listed as a "bronze level" Superstar in this article and that's based on his all-defensive awards.  According to his article... how many teams have won titles with a best player as a bronze level superstar?  From what I can see... only ONE team.  THe 1979 Sonics... and they had two bronze level superstars... not just one.

In other words... History shows that we will never win a title with Rondo as our best player.  Hence why we're tanking this year (to try to land a proper superstar) and probably dumping Rondo for prospects before the year is out.

  If Rondo had been a little healthier against the Lakers in 2010 we'd have already won a title with Rondo as our best player (KG was clearly affected by his knee injury that year). We've come close enough to winning a title led by Rondo that history shows that we probably *can* win a title with him.

[GreenEnvy]

The good news is that we already have a player on Elrod's list.

  It's also worth pointing out that if you cut off the careers of all of the players at about the age Rondo was after the 2012 playoffs the number of them with more appearances than Rondo on the best or 2nd best on teams that went that far would drop dramatically.

i disagree that this is worth pointing out. well, maybe if KG and Pierce were lesser stars....

  How far have those two taken the Celts when Rondo wasn't healthy?

You sound like a Kobe troll who thinks Pippen made Jordan the winner he was.

Celtics win in 2008 with or without Rondo. House was on the court at the end of a lot close games, especially in the playoffs.

You think Celtics would have gone anywhere without Pierce/KG in 2010 or 2012?

[BballTim]

You think Celtics would have gone anywhere without Pierce/KG in 2010 or 2012?

  They wouldn't have gone any farther without KG or PP than they would have without Rondo in either of those years. Saying we wouldn't have had as much success without KG and PP isn't the same as saying they were carrying Rondo or were better than he was in those playoffs.

[GreenEnvy]

You think Celtics would have gone anywhere without Pierce/KG in 2010 or 2012?

  They wouldn't have gone any farther without KG or PP than they would have without Rondo in either of those years. Saying we wouldn't have had as much success without KG and PP isn't the same as saying they were carrying Rondo or were better than he was in those playoffs.

It's rather common knowledge at this point of the +/- impact of KG in 2012. It's kind of hard to argue Rondo was more important than him last year, but we all know your stance on Rondo, so no point in arguing that.

As for 2010, NBATV aired a bunch of recent Celtics playoff games (from 2008-2010) and I recorded a lot of the memorable ones. KG at 76% was still so effective. Pierce was elite on both ends. Ray was hitting crazy shots. Rondo was making his circus passes. That was a team effort. You can rank them however you want, but they needed all four of them to get where they got. If KG was closer to 100%, it's not debatable IMO and we definitely hang another banner.