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

[PhoSita]

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".

Yet still the vast majority that weren't acquired in the draft were acquired by trading draft assets.

Lakers --> I don't think the Celtics can hope to emulate the Lakers, due to a variety of factors.
Spurs --> Duncan
Pistons --> You have to get very lucky to assemble a collection of talent like that and have the more-talented teams run into bad luck / implode; I also think the new CBA militates against collecting multiple stars like that Pistons team did.
Celtics --> Pierce; Allen was acquired w/ the #5 pick; Garnett never agrees to the trade if not for Pierce + Allen.
Mavs --> Dirk
Heat --> LeBron + Bosh never come to Miami if Dwyane Wade isn't there already.


That's just the championship teams, of course.

  Duncan was drafted by the Spurs, the best asset traded for any of the others was probably a #5 pick in a draft with 4 players that everyone wanted. "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" isn't really the case at all.

Well, the sentence you're quoting is a description of how things have been in the HISTORY of the league, not just since 2000.  You're right that things have shifted away from players necessarily winning for the team that drafted them.

Still, my assertion is that when you look at the teams that have won the championship since 2000, a key ingredient to reaching contention for almost all of those teams was getting a high pick that turned into a star, or that was traded for a star.

  Almost every team in the league has either a high draft pick or a player that they traded one for. That's not what you'd call a differentiator.

Sigh.

Except if you were to assume that I'm not an idiot, which would require giving me some respect, then you'd probably interpret my use of the phrase "key ingredient" to mean "essential component" i.e. they couldn't have won the championship without it. 

The draft pick either became a player that was one of the very best on the team, or was used directly or indirectly to acquire such a player.


It's true, every year 10 teams get a top 10 pick.  Clearly not all of those teams are going to win a championship via those picks.  But if you look at the teams that do win championships in this league, and even the majority of the teams that come close, they had a high draft pick somewhere along their journey to title contention, and it made a huge difference.

[chambers]

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.

You say it's far more difficult to do it other ways, but that's not really the case.  One aspect of this whole debate that I don't really think is discussed enough is the fact that even if teams do get a superstar at the top of the draft, those players rarely pan out to be championship leading type players while still on their rookie contracts. 

1)
The problem with sacrificing everything to get high in the draft is that when good young players are stuck on crappy teams, they often want to get away to somewhere where they feel they have a chance of winning at their first available opportunity. 

2) This is one of the things that makes the be as bad as possible to get a high draft pick plan such a risky proposition.  Sure, 2007 worked out for us, but the majority of the time being bad just begets more being bad. 

The thing about getting a veteran superstar player through free agency or trade (although, I admit it's certainly not an easy thing to do considering those types of players' overall scarcity) is that you are getting a player who wants to be on your team and is getting paid good money to be there.  You are also getting a player who is seasoned enough to know how to win. 

3) If you can find a way to get one of those players to pair up with the homegrown superstar that you already have in place in a situation with good role players, a good coach, and a winning culture, then, in my opinion, you have a recipe for success. 

To me "Wiggins or Parker or Bust" isn't really much of a thoughtful plan for rebuilding a contender.

This is a really good breakdown.
I'm 100% for this type of acquisition listed in point 3.

So lets break this down further.
The problem for the Celtics (and the main argument carried by the pro-'tank' advocates like myself) is that acquiring that superstar and pairing him with Rondo is still not enough. At this stage, Rondo and Green even as a combination don't appear to be enough when paired with that top 20 NBA talent sought via free agency.

ie: Getting Aldridge and pairing him with Rondo means we have two bronze or silver tier stars. I'd argue that putting Aldridge with such a premier passing guard like Rondo could elevate Alridge to an upper silver level status.

My argument is that even with Sully and Jeff Green, for the Celtics to come close a contender we have to (in order of importance)

1) acquire someone like Aldridge or Kevin Love whilst retaining Rondo and Green.
2) Rondo MUST elevate to silver status- or somehow get his shooting to a top 25 point guard standard in the NBA (free throws, 3 pt % both as good as his short range jumpshot).
3) Rondo must avoid injury, AND he must do this before he becomes a free agent in 2 seasons end and has an opportunity to be poached by the Knicks or Lakers etc.


Anti-tank advocates are perfectly reasonable arguing that losing by design is not good for a young team and creates a losing culture. That's completely understandable and I have no problem with that. It's a risk you take.

In your case, I think it's fair to say you'd agree with the notion that you need 2 superstars and more high level complimentary players. Correct?
The problem from my side of the fence is that we don't have ONE of those player yet. Rondo hasn't reached superstar status and probably never will given his shooting and injury woes.
This team is 2 more All Star caliber players away from being a legitimate threat. Adding Aldridge or Love is good, but even with Rondo they must reach and/or continue to play at a SILVER level status or higher.

Most tanking advocates are not 'tank or bust'. We don't want to give up Rondo. We want Rondo to get the help of a superstar or two silver level players because Rondo currently a 3rd tier/Bronze status star. We haven't even seen what he can do without multiple stars around him- his stock could rise or fall but unless his shooting improves, I can't see how his stock rises when his supporting cast just got morbidly worse.

With a situation like our team is currently in though, we are already going to find it very difficult to finish above the bottom 10 teams in the league.
I don't wan't our coach to throw games or purposely lose 'on the day'. But I don't have a problem with Danny constructing the roster a certain way to give us player development/growth and experience whilst maintaining the best mathematical chance to bink a potential 'superstar'.
You've heard it so many times, but a draft this good just doesn't come along that often. If we are going to have a legitimate shot at a top 10 pick- why not lose an extra 10 games to make that a top 5 pick?
It gives us more options and (in my opinion) doesn't induce a 'losing culture' or make our trade assets less valuable- it just means we might be lucky enough to get a Derrick Rose or Tim Duncan to pair with Rondo- thus inducing more bronze level free agents to consider Boston as possible destination in 2-3 years time. Rondo will still be 30, and we could have a superstar with 2 seasons experience surrounded by Rondo, Green, Sully who already have that winning mentality after playing with Kevin Garnett.
If we don't 'bink' one of those superstars- the player who we get, or the pick we get, could be used to acquire a second superstar player to put with a potential pair of Rondo and Aldridge.

It's the same as when we got KG. Danny went for Oden/Durant to pair with Pierce and Rondo as plan A. That fell through, so Ainge had Plan B in place which was using the 5th pick to send to Seattle and give KG a reason to come to Boston. Paul Pierce just wasn't enough incentive to bring KG to Boston- but adding Ray Allen via that lottery pick was the icing on the cake.

I believe this team needs one platinum level superstar like Lebron James, or two potential silver level guys like Aldridge and Carmelo Anthony.
Adding these guys to Rondo gives us a contender, but adding one of them probably doesn't.
Adding one of these guys via free agency+trade will be tough, adding two will be even harder.
With a draft this good, why not increase our odds of a good result and have a legitimate 'Plan B' incase we can't get those Silver status guys to play with Rondo.
To get free agents of a silver or gold status you need serious assets.

Look at it two ways:
1)The higher the draft pick, the more chance of drafting a superstar

or

2)The higher the draft pick, the greater the trade assett to acquire an established bronze/silver level star.

[lightspeed5]

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.

You say it's far more difficult to do it other ways, but that's not really the case.  One aspect of this whole debate that I don't really think is discussed enough is the fact that even if teams do get a superstar at the top of the draft, those players rarely pan out to be championship leading type players while still on their rookie contracts. 

The problem with sacrificing everything to get high in the draft is that when good young players are stuck on crappy teams, they often want to get away to somewhere where they feel they have a chance of winning at their first available opportunity. 

This is one of the things that makes the be as bad as possible to get a high draft pick plan such a risky proposition.  Sure, 2007 worked out for us, but the majority of the time being bad just begets more being bad. 

The thing about getting a veteran superstar player through free agency or trade (although, I admit it's certainly not an easy thing to do considering those types of players' overall scarcity) is that you are getting a player who wants to be on your team and is getting paid good money to be there.  You are also getting a player who is seasoned enough to know how to win. 

If you can find a way to get one of those players to pair up with the homegrown superstar that you already have in place in a situation with good role players, a good coach, and a winning culture, then, in my opinion, you have a recipe for success. 

To me "Wiggins or Parker or Bust" isn't really much of a thoughtful plan for rebuilding a contender.

"
The problem with sacrificing everything to get high in the draft is that when good young players are stuck on crappy teams, they often want to get away to somewhere where they feel they have a chance of winning at their first available opportunity.  "

oh ok, thats why Kevin durant suffered through multiple horrid teams.

[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.

Sure, Rondo's only bronze right now, but of the fourteen active players ahead of him on Enchilada's list, only three of them are younger than Rajon.  He's at the very top of the bronze category as of right now.  I think considering his age and where he is that there's a fairly reasonable chance that he could move up into silver within the next few seasons, and possibly even gold. 

I would agree that platinum is most likely a stretch.

More likely we'll never see Rondo make an allstar game again.   That injury and losing 3 hall-of-fame teammates probably derailed his entire career.

Back when Rondo was in his prime, I could have seen him as the 2nd or 3rd best player on a contender.  But at this point, I don't think we're likely to see it... if he wins a title it'll be in the "Jason Kidd on the Mavericks" capacity.

  Rondo's just entering his prime. You're acting like he's the same age as "Jason Kidd on the Mavericks". Go back and check that list of players in that article and start finding players who accomplished everything that they did on that list before they turned 27. Your scenario isn't necessarily impossible but, historically speaking, it's probably less likely than the "History shows that we will never win a title with Rondo as our best player" claim you made.

Talk me off the ledge Tim.  Show me some examples of 27 year old "bronze" level stars who improved after tearing their ACL. 

[LilRip]

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?

on the flipside, how far will Rondo take the C's without those two?

my point is, your point of "cut off the careers of all of the players at about the age Rondo was after the 2012 playoffs" bears no real significance.

  I don't think that the fact that Rondo's played less than half of his career and has barely entered his prime "bears no real significance" when comparing the career achievements of players. I'd say that if Rondo can't take this year's Celts team far, all it proves is that he's not LeBron, who would probably struggle to win with this cast.

Your point was "players with more appearances than Rondo on the best or 2nd best on teams that went that far [ECF/NBA Finals]" which is supposed to be something worth pointing out. (FWIW, among active players with the exception of Steve Nash, in terms of individual career achievements by the age of 27, the players above Rondo seem to be deserving to be above him in terms of tier).

But all it tells me is that you seem to be missing the main point of the entire writeup. It ranks players, sure, but it doesn't end there. It shows the importance of having multiple stars to have a legit contender. By virtue of Rondo already being on the list shows that the C's have some sort of a starting point. But the fact that they only have him also shows how far they still need to go.

so your point of "rondo has accomplished more playoff success than a lot of those guys at age 27" isn't really relevant in a thread that's based on this article. It's like me saying "How many of those players won a Finals MVP by their 3rd year? That's why Wade is awesome". It's a nice little tidbit but we didn't need to reference this writeup to say that, and thus, not really worth pointing out.

(As a sidenote: while Rondo has indeed accomplished a lot, to blatantly ignore KG and PP is in poor taste imo. His playoff successes were achieved on a team with multiple stars, which pretty much backs up the point the writeup was driving home. Now, if Rondo had achieved that much success with Green and Sully [instead of PP and KG] who are decidedly lesser players, only then would it would be worth mentioning, specifically because it bucks the trend that the article presented.)

Now you may be thinking "but Rondo could develop into a silver star! Or even gold! maybe even platinum! He's destined for great things!" While i think it's highly unlikely that he'll ever move past a silver star (because it gets increasingly harder to move up in the rankings as a player's career progresses because the divisor increases year on year) it doesn't change the fact that he's the lone star on the C's and, as this article shows, having one isn't gonna cut it if you want a contender.

[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.

Sure, Rondo's only bronze right now, but of the fourteen active players ahead of him on Enchilada's list, only three of them are younger than Rajon.  He's at the very top of the bronze category as of right now.  I think considering his age and where he is that there's a fairly reasonable chance that he could move up into silver within the next few seasons, and possibly even gold. 

I would agree that platinum is most likely a stretch.

More likely we'll never see Rondo make an allstar game again.   That injury and losing 3 hall-of-fame teammates probably derailed his entire career.

Back when Rondo was in his prime, I could have seen him as the 2nd or 3rd best player on a contender.  But at this point, I don't think we're likely to see it... if he wins a title it'll be in the "Jason Kidd on the Mavericks" capacity.

  Rondo's just entering his prime. You're acting like he's the same age as "Jason Kidd on the Mavericks". Go back and check that list of players in that article and start finding players who accomplished everything that they did on that list before they turned 27. Your scenario isn't necessarily impossible but, historically speaking, it's probably less likely than the "History shows that we will never win a title with Rondo as our best player" claim you made.

Talk me off the ledge Tim.  Show me some examples of 27 year old "bronze" level stars who improved after tearing their ACL.

  Hew many "bronze" level stars tore their acls at the age of 27? Give me a list of those players and we'll figure out how many of them fell off the face of the earth after it happened.

[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.

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.

You say it's far more difficult to do it other ways, but that's not really the case.  One aspect of this whole debate that I don't really think is discussed enough is the fact that even if teams do get a superstar at the top of the draft, those players rarely pan out to be championship leading type players while still on their rookie contracts. 

The problem with sacrificing everything to get high in the draft is that when good young players are stuck on crappy teams, they often want to get away to somewhere where they feel they have a chance of winning at their first available opportunity. 

This is one of the things that makes the be as bad as possible to get a high draft pick plan such a risky proposition.  Sure, 2007 worked out for us, but the majority of the time being bad just begets more being bad. 

The thing about getting a veteran superstar player through free agency or trade (although, I admit it's certainly not an easy thing to do considering those types of players' overall scarcity) is that you are getting a player who wants to be on your team and is getting paid good money to be there.  You are also getting a player who is seasoned enough to know how to win. 

If you can find a way to get one of those players to pair up with the homegrown superstar that you already have in place in a situation with good role players, a good coach, and a winning culture, then, in my opinion, you have a recipe for success. 

To me "Wiggins or Parker or Bust" isn't really much of a thoughtful plan for rebuilding a contender.

"
The problem with sacrificing everything to get high in the draft is that when good young players are stuck on crappy teams, they often want to get away to somewhere where they feel they have a chance of winning at their first available opportunity.  "

oh ok, thats why Kevin durant suffered through multiple horrid teams.

No.  Kevin Durant stayed in spite of suffering through some horrid teams, not because of it.  He probably felt that the Thunder were headed in the right direction, and he wanted to be the face of that franchise and try to help lead them to championships.  Good for him.

Notice my use of the word "often" instead of the word "always."   It's an important distinction.

[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?

on the flipside, how far will Rondo take the C's without those two?

my point is, your point of "cut off the careers of all of the players at about the age Rondo was after the 2012 playoffs" bears no real significance.

  I don't think that the fact that Rondo's played less than half of his career and has barely entered his prime "bears no real significance" when comparing the career achievements of players. I'd say that if Rondo can't take this year's Celts team far, all it proves is that he's not LeBron, who would probably struggle to win with this cast.

Your point was "players with more appearances than Rondo on the best or 2nd best on teams that went that far [ECF/NBA Finals]" which is supposed to be something worth pointing out. (FWIW, among active players with the exception of Steve Nash, in terms of individual career achievements by the age of 27, the players above Rondo seem to be deserving to be above him in terms of tier).

But all it tells me is that you seem to be missing the main point of the entire writeup. It ranks players, sure, but it doesn't end there. It shows the importance of having multiple stars to have a legit contender. By virtue of Rondo already being on the list shows that the C's have some sort of a starting point. But the fact that they only have him also shows how far they still need to go.

  Haha. It wasn't that hard to understand. Having Rondo on the team shows that we're part way there as much as it shows that we still have far to go.

so your point of "rondo has accomplished more playoff success than a lot of those guys at age 27" isn't really relevant in a thread that's based on this article. It's like me saying "How many of those players won a Finals MVP by their 3rd year? That's why Wade is awesome". It's a nice little tidbit but we didn't need to reference this writeup to say that, and thus, not really worth pointing out.

  While I appreciate your efforts to police the thread and make sure people don't post anything that *you* consider to be off topic, I'd still say that the fact that the bulk of the players had more success in the postseason when they were older than they did at his age bodes well for him.

(As a sidenote: while Rondo has indeed accomplished a lot, to blatantly ignore KG and PP is in poor taste imo.

  How exactly did I "blatantly ignore KG and PP"? Sidenote: this is really the crux of the entire discussion: some people just can't stand it when Rondo gets any credit for the team's success. Did I say Rondo was the only player on the team who was responsible for the team's success? No. Did I claim that he single-handedly led the team to their success? No. Did I say that PP and KG had nothing to do with the team's success? Of course not. I guess my posts are more tasteful than you realize.

Now you may be thinking "but Rondo could develop into a silver star! Or even gold! maybe even platinum! He's destined for great things!" While i think it's highly unlikely that he'll ever move past a silver star (because it gets increasingly harder to move up in the rankings as a player's career progresses because the divisor increases year on year) it doesn't change the fact that he's the lone star on the C's and, as this article shows, having one isn't gonna cut it if you want a contender.

  I doubt that anyone in the thread has said anything that remotely sounds like "we can win a title if Rondo's our only star player". If anyone has, it certainly wasn't me.

[crimson_stallion]

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".

Yet still the vast majority that weren't acquired in the draft were acquired by trading draft assets.

Lakers --> I don't think the Celtics can hope to emulate the Lakers, due to a variety of factors.
Spurs --> Duncan
Pistons --> You have to get very lucky to assemble a collection of talent like that and have the more-talented teams run into bad luck / implode; I also think the new CBA militates against collecting multiple stars like that Pistons team did.
Celtics --> Pierce; Allen was acquired w/ the #5 pick; Garnett never agrees to the trade if not for Pierce + Allen.
Mavs --> Dirk
Heat --> LeBron + Bosh never come to Miami if Dwyane Wade isn't there already.


That's just the championship teams, of course.

Lakers --> Lakers won initial titles with Kobe as a key ingredient, however that's pretty much irrelevant because they never would have won those titles without Shaq, who (IIRC) was signed in free agency.  The second run of titles wasn't achived until Gasol, Odom, Artest were added.

Spurs --> Duncan is one valid (and very rare) example of a team that won a title shortly after drafting a top prospect.  It is the exception rather than the rule.

Pistons -->  Bad luck?  The Piston's were one of the elite teams in the league all season long and were one of the best defensive teams in recent history.  Today's equivalent of their roster would be something like John Wall,  JR Smith, Nicholas Batum, Lemarcus Aldridge, Omar Asik.  Not a single superstar, but a couple of fringe All-Stars.  They knocked off the Lakers Super-team which was about today's equivalent of the new-look Nets or Heat.  Luck had nothing to do with it, that was a great team.

Celtics --> Pierce was drafted by Boston...about 10 years prior!  The Celtics went through years of mediocrity with Pierce (their superstar draft pick) on the roster, and it wasn't until Ray and KG came along (via trades) that Boston became a serious contender.  Ray's draft status is irrelevant...he had been though 2 or 3 teams before coming to Boston and his value was well known.

Mavs --> Dirk came to Dallas via the draft yes...but (as with Pierce in Boston) he was in Dallas for about a decade before they win that title.  Once other guys (like JJ, Chandler, Terry, Kidd) were added it put them over the edge.

Heat --> Wade was drafted in Miami, the heat were garbage unti they managed to get Shaq, who was still in the last year or two of his prime dominance.  Wade was the #2 player on that team, and after Shaq left they again fell back to mediocrity until they managed to pull Lebron and Bosh in (both via free agency, not by trading picks).

Truth is, there is really only one single case I can think of in the past decade where a team has drafted an elite player and won a title within a couple of years withing adding any other elite players - that was San Antonio with Duncan.

The Thunder are the next closest as they have made the finals through draft success, but it took them several consecutive successful drafts (and a LOT of luck with health, etc) to achieve that, and they still have no title.

Take a look at the teams who drafted in the top three for the past 10 years:

2012
1. New Orleans Hornets (Anthony Davis)
2. Charlotte Bobcats (Michael Kidd-Gilchrist)
3. Washington Wizards (Bradley Beal)
 
2011
1. Cleveland Cavaliers (Kyrie Irving)
2. Minnesota Timberwolves (Derrick Williams)
3. Utah Jazz (Enes Kanter)
 
2010
1. Washington Wizards (John Wall)
2. Philadelphia 76ers (Evan Turner)
3. New Jersey Nets (Derrick Favors)
 
2009
1. Los Angeles Clippers (Blake Griffin)
2. Memphis Grizzlies (Hasheem Thabeet)
3. Oklahoma City Thunder (James Harden)
 
2008
1. Chicago Bulls (Derrick Rose)
2. Miami Heat (Michael Beasley)
3. Minnesota Timberwolves (O.J. Mayo)
 
2007
1. Portland Trail Blazers (Greg Oden)
2. Seattle Supersonics (Kevin Durant)
3. Atlanta Hawks (Al Horford)
 
2006
1. Toronto Raptors (Andrea Bargnani)
2. Chicago Bulls (LaMarcus Aldridge)
3. Charlotte Bobcats (Adam Morrison)
 
2005
1. Milwaukee Bucks (Andrew Bogut)
2. Atlanta Hawks (Marvin Williams)
3. Utah Jazz (Deron Williams)
 
2004
1. Orlando Magic (Dwight Howard)
2. Charlotte Bobcats (Emeka Okafor)
3. Chicago Bulls (Ben Gordon)
 
2003
1. Cleveland Cavaliers (LeBron James)
2. Detroit Pistons (Darko Milicic)
3. Denver Nuggets (Carmelo Anthony)

Out of the past 10 years there have been 20 different teams which have drafted in the top 3:

Charlotte Bobcats (three times)
Chicago Bulls (three times)
Washington Wizards (two times)
Cleveland Cavaliers (two times)
Minnesota Timberwolves (two times)
Oklahoma City Thunder (Two times including Seattle/Durant)
Utah Jazz (two times)
Atlanta Hawks (two times)
New Orleans Hornets
Philadelphia 76ers
New Jersey Nets
Los Angeles Clippers
Memphis Grizzlies
Miami Heat
Portland Trail Blazers
Toronto Raptors
Milwaukee Bucks
Orlando Magic
Detroit Pistons
Denver Nuggets

Facts:
* Only 1/20 teams has won a championhip (Miami)

* Only 2/20 teams have made the NBA Finals (Miami, OKC)

* Only 4/20 teams made it past the first round of the playoffs last season (Miami, Chicago, Seattle/OKC, Memphis)

* Only 9/20 teams made the playoffs at all last season

This history suggests to me that if this year's Celtics are bad enough to get a top 3 lottery pick, we probably will not have a serious playoff team for at least the next 5 (maybe 10) years.

Our future first round picks from Brooklyn, LAC and ourselves already have value.  Worst-case scenario (from a draft perspective) we end up a fringe playoff team and choosing at around 12-20 n the draft.  That gives us the potential to draft players like Kylly Olynyk, Jared Sullinger and Avery Bradley - guys who all have pretty solid trade value right now, epecially as part of a package.  If we can draft 3 or 4 guys of that calibre over the next few seasons then that potentially gives us 6-7 young, talented players who we could either:

1. Use to fill holes on our team
2, Package in a sign-and-trade for a star player entering free agency
3. Package in a trade for a high lottery pick
4. Package in return for cap relief that could be used to sign star players

All of those options are IMO better than gambling everything on a lottery pick, and one of them requires having to endure the unplesant nature of being a losing team.

[Celtics18]

This has naturally turned into a debate focused around the issues of tanking and whether or not Rajon Rondo deserves to be anywhere on the list of all-time great players.

From my perspective, Rondo does deserve to be ranked on that list.  I also believe that if he can return to full health and stay healthy that he has a good shot of moving up the list.  When I look at the careers of the recent elite point guards in the league--Steve Nash, Jason Kidd, John Stockton, and Tony Parker--what jumps out at me is that they all had fairly late primes.  Somewhere between 28 and 34 seems to be the prime years for elite point guards.  Rondo is set to enter his prime years within the next couple of seasons.

If he's not healthy, then, yes, I think this team will be one of the worst in the league and end up being one of the teams with the most ping pong balls next summer.  We won't need to actively try to tank.  Jeff Green, Jared Sullinger, Avery Bradley, Kelly Olynyk, Brandon Bass, Gerald Wallace, Kris Humphries and whoever else gets on the court can all play their hearts out, and we will likely still end up with a chance at Wiggins or Parker by the end of the season (although, I must say that if that team could somehow miraculously keep themselves in the hunt to win close to as many games as they lost, I would wholeheartedly root for that.  What a great story that would be.  Ping pong balls be danged!).

However, if Rondo is healthy--which I realize is a very big if--for most or all of the season, I simply believe that he will make this team too good to be one of the bottom ten teams in the league.  I still think the team would have to work very hard and have everything go right to make the playoffs, but they would have to work even harder to put themselves in a position to be a top lottery pick. 

For me personally, I can't help it.  I would rather see my team work hard to win than work hard to lose.  If a winning season is even remotely within reach, I'm going to be pulling for one.

CrimsonStallion has an excellent post above that points out that regardless of where we draft next summer, we still have a number of assets that mean we are in a position to improve the team in the coming years.  And, sure, landing in the top of the lottery gives you a better chance at landing elite talent than not landing in the top of the lottery.  The unfortunate conundrum with the current NBA system, though, is that to get those top lottery spots, you have to be a loser to do so. 

If you are already a loser like the Bobcats, the Magic, the Suns, the Sixers, the Jazz, or the Bucks, and you don't have any elite talent to begin with, then you find yourself in a position where all you can do is lose.   If every team in the league puts in an honest effort, somebody naturally has to end up at the bottom.  I have no problem with those teams getting a shot at improving by drafting the best young players from the basketball playing world in order to have a shot at improvement.  But, it shouldn't be a goal.  In a sense, the draft is a charity system.  Maybe that's what's wrong with it.  Sports should be about competing to win, not about competing for the top handout in the off-season.  That just cheapens the spirit of the whole thing. 

I guess I don't mind the handout thing as long as I feel confident that every team is doing everything they can to win as many games as they possibly can.   

I know I've gone way off topic here, but to try to get back on, I don't think Enchilada is saying anything ground breaking when he says that it takes top talent to compete for titles in the NBA.  We all knew that.  The question for me is how cynical and how far away from the ethics of sports do we want our teams to be willing to go to make an effort to get that elite talent?

 

[Surferdad]

This has naturally turned into a debate focused around the issues of tanking and whether or not Rajon Rondo deserves to be anywhere on the list of all-time great players.

From my perspective, Rondo does deserve to be ranked on that list.  I also believe that if he can return to full health and stay healthy that he has a good shot of moving up the list.  When I look at the careers of the recent elite point guards in the league--Steve Nash, Jason Kidd, John Stockton, and Tony Parker--what jumps out at me is that they all had fairly late primes.  Somewhere between 28 and 34 seems to be the prime years for elite point guards.  Rondo is set to enter his prime years within the next couple of seasons.

If he's not healthy, then, yes, I think this team will be one of the worst in the league and end up being one of the teams with the most ping pong balls next summer.  We won't need to actively try to tank.  Jeff Green, Jared Sullinger, Avery Bradley, Kelly Olynyk, Brandon Bass, Gerald Wallace, Kris Humphries and whoever else gets on the court can all play their hearts out, and we will likely still end up with a chance at Wiggins or Parker by the end of the season (although, I must say that if that team could somehow miraculously keep themselves in the hunt to win close to as many games as they lost, I would wholeheartedly root for that.  What a great story that would be.  Ping pong balls be danged!).

However, if Rondo is healthy--which I realize is a very big if--for most or all of the season, I simply believe that he will make this team too good to be one of the bottom ten teams in the league.  I still think the team would have to work very hard and have everything go right to make the playoffs, but they would have to work even harder to put themselves in a position to be a top lottery pick. 

For me personally, I can't help it.  I would rather see my team work hard to win than work hard to lose.  If a winning season is even remotely within reach, I'm going to be pulling for one.

CrimsonStallion has an excellent post above that points out that regardless of where we draft next summer, we still have a number of assets that mean we are in a position to improve the team in the coming years.  And, sure, landing in the top of the lottery gives you a better chance at landing elite talent than not landing in the top of the lottery.  The unfortunate conundrum with the current NBA system, though, is that to get those top lottery spots, you have to be a loser to do so. 

If you are already a loser like the Bobcats, the Magic, the Suns, the Sixers, the Jazz, or the Bucks, and you don't have any elite talent to begin with, then you find yourself in a position where all you can do is lose.   If every team in the league puts in an honest effort, somebody naturally has to end up at the bottom.  I have no problem with those teams getting a shot at improving by drafting the best young players from the basketball playing world in order to have a shot at improvement.  But, it shouldn't be a goal.  In a sense, the draft is a charity system.  Maybe that's what's wrong with it.  Sports should be about competing to win, not about competing for the top handout in the off-season.  That just cheapens the spirit of the whole thing. 

I guess I don't mind the handout thing as long as I feel confident that every team is doing everything they can to win as many games as they possibly can.   

I know I've gone way off topic here, but to try to get back on, I don't think Enchilada is saying anything ground breaking when he says that it takes top talent to compete for titles in the NBA.  We all knew that.  The question for me is how cynical and how far away from the ethics of sports do we want our teams to be willing to go to make an effort to get that elite talent?

TP for you Celtics18. I don't believe in tanking and I think it happens a lot less in the NBA than many people here are implying.  In the Celtics history we had the ML Carr days but that's about it.  I also fully agree that tanking is not a sure-fire approach to getting better.

The main thing is that I will always root for this team to win. I wonder if those who think we should tank will actually sit and watch this team play this upcoming season and hope they lose.  Personally I can't do it. 

[LilRip]

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?

on the flipside, how far will Rondo take the C's without those two?

my point is, your point of "cut off the careers of all of the players at about the age Rondo was after the 2012 playoffs" bears no real significance.

  I don't think that the fact that Rondo's played less than half of his career and has barely entered his prime "bears no real significance" when comparing the career achievements of players. I'd say that if Rondo can't take this year's Celts team far, all it proves is that he's not LeBron, who would probably struggle to win with this cast.

Your point was "players with more appearances than Rondo on the best or 2nd best on teams that went that far [ECF/NBA Finals]" which is supposed to be something worth pointing out. (FWIW, among active players with the exception of Steve Nash, in terms of individual career achievements by the age of 27, the players above Rondo seem to be deserving to be above him in terms of tier).

But all it tells me is that you seem to be missing the main point of the entire writeup. It ranks players, sure, but it doesn't end there. It shows the importance of having multiple stars to have a legit contender. By virtue of Rondo already being on the list shows that the C's have some sort of a starting point. But the fact that they only have him also shows how far they still need to go.

  Haha. It wasn't that hard to understand. Having Rondo on the team shows that we're part way there as much as it shows that we still have far to go.

so your point of "rondo has accomplished more playoff success than a lot of those guys at age 27" isn't really relevant in a thread that's based on this article. It's like me saying "How many of those players won a Finals MVP by their 3rd year? That's why Wade is awesome". It's a nice little tidbit but we didn't need to reference this writeup to say that, and thus, not really worth pointing out.

  While I appreciate your efforts to police the thread and make sure people don't post anything that *you* consider to be off topic, I'd still say that the fact that the bulk of the players had more success in the postseason when they were older than they did at his age bodes well for him.

(As a sidenote: while Rondo has indeed accomplished a lot, to blatantly ignore KG and PP is in poor taste imo.

  How exactly did I "blatantly ignore KG and PP"? Sidenote: this is really the crux of the entire discussion: some people just can't stand it when Rondo gets any credit for the team's success. Did I say Rondo was the only player on the team who was responsible for the team's success? No. Did I claim that he single-handedly led the team to their success? No. Did I say that PP and KG had nothing to do with the team's success? Of course not. I guess my posts are more tasteful than you realize.

Now you may be thinking "but Rondo could develop into a silver star! Or even gold! maybe even platinum! He's destined for great things!" While i think it's highly unlikely that he'll ever move past a silver star (because it gets increasingly harder to move up in the rankings as a player's career progresses because the divisor increases year on year) it doesn't change the fact that he's the lone star on the C's and, as this article shows, having one isn't gonna cut it if you want a contender.

  I doubt that anyone in the thread has said anything that remotely sounds like "we can win a title if Rondo's our only star player". If anyone has, it certainly wasn't me.

And so at the end of it all, it seems your original point is still pretty much not worth pointing out. lol

Because when it comes to comparing players under age 27, you seem to have completely missed the part where i said "FWIW, among active players with the exception of Steve Nash, in terms of individual career achievements by the age of 27, the players above Rondo seem to be deserving to be above him in terms of tier."

That's pretty much a more relevant statement than one that says "the bulk of the players had more success in the postseason when they were older than they did at his age bodes well for him."

I mean, why does it bode well for him? Is previous playoff success an indication of what will happen in the future? Is it some sort of guarantee that more postseason success will come? I'm pretty sure it can't because you already agreed that postseason success is a team effort. Thus, future postseason success will not be dependent on any kind of Rondo's previous postseason accomplishments but more on the team constructed alongside Rondo. I mean, if DA messes up the rebuild, Rondo could have already played his last game in the ECF. That's why i don't understand why previous playoff success "bodes well for him", especially since the team that had those playoff achievements is now dismantled.

And furthermore, for your original statement of "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" to be noteworthy at all, it would have to mean something other than what the article already does a good job of saying (which is that you need multiple stars to be a contender/have playoff success).

Otherwise, all you're getting at is that:
1. Rondo is a star (a bronze one as already shown in the article)
2. He's blessed to have been part of a team with multiple stars (because you aren't discrediting KG and PP)
3. And that team has enjoyed postseason success (the main point of the article)


And none of those points are particularly noteworthy because they're quite obvious as day. Rondo's success is the product of a good player being on a good team.

To reiterate myself:

His playoff successes were achieved on a team with multiple stars, which pretty much backs up the point the writeup was driving home. Now, if Rondo had achieved that much success with Green and Sully [instead of PP and KG] who are decidedly lesser players, only then would it would be worth mentioning, specifically because it bucks the trend that the article presented.

[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?

on the flipside, how far will Rondo take the C's without those two?

my point is, your point of "cut off the careers of all of the players at about the age Rondo was after the 2012 playoffs" bears no real significance.

  I don't think that the fact that Rondo's played less than half of his career and has barely entered his prime "bears no real significance" when comparing the career achievements of players. I'd say that if Rondo can't take this year's Celts team far, all it proves is that he's not LeBron, who would probably struggle to win with this cast.

Your point was "players with more appearances than Rondo on the best or 2nd best on teams that went that far [ECF/NBA Finals]" which is supposed to be something worth pointing out. (FWIW, among active players with the exception of Steve Nash, in terms of individual career achievements by the age of 27, the players above Rondo seem to be deserving to be above him in terms of tier).

But all it tells me is that you seem to be missing the main point of the entire writeup. It ranks players, sure, but it doesn't end there. It shows the importance of having multiple stars to have a legit contender. By virtue of Rondo already being on the list shows that the C's have some sort of a starting point. But the fact that they only have him also shows how far they still need to go.

  Haha. It wasn't that hard to understand. Having Rondo on the team shows that we're part way there as much as it shows that we still have far to go.

so your point of "rondo has accomplished more playoff success than a lot of those guys at age 27" isn't really relevant in a thread that's based on this article. It's like me saying "How many of those players won a Finals MVP by their 3rd year? That's why Wade is awesome". It's a nice little tidbit but we didn't need to reference this writeup to say that, and thus, not really worth pointing out.

  While I appreciate your efforts to police the thread and make sure people don't post anything that *you* consider to be off topic, I'd still say that the fact that the bulk of the players had more success in the postseason when they were older than they did at his age bodes well for him.

(As a sidenote: while Rondo has indeed accomplished a lot, to blatantly ignore KG and PP is in poor taste imo.

  How exactly did I "blatantly ignore KG and PP"? Sidenote: this is really the crux of the entire discussion: some people just can't stand it when Rondo gets any credit for the team's success. Did I say Rondo was the only player on the team who was responsible for the team's success? No. Did I claim that he single-handedly led the team to their success? No. Did I say that PP and KG had nothing to do with the team's success? Of course not. I guess my posts are more tasteful than you realize.

Now you may be thinking "but Rondo could develop into a silver star! Or even gold! maybe even platinum! He's destined for great things!" While i think it's highly unlikely that he'll ever move past a silver star (because it gets increasingly harder to move up in the rankings as a player's career progresses because the divisor increases year on year) it doesn't change the fact that he's the lone star on the C's and, as this article shows, having one isn't gonna cut it if you want a contender.

  I doubt that anyone in the thread has said anything that remotely sounds like "we can win a title if Rondo's our only star player". If anyone has, it certainly wasn't me.

And so at the end of it all, it seems your original point is still pretty much not worth pointing out. lol

Because when it comes to comparing players under age 27, you seem to have completely missed the part where i said "FWIW, among active players with the exception of Steve Nash, in terms of individual career achievements by the age of 27, the players above Rondo seem to be deserving to be above him in terms of tier."

That's pretty much a more relevant statement than one that says "the bulk of the players had more success in the postseason when they were older than they did at his age bodes well for him."

  That would be a much more relevant statement if the discussion centered around individual career regular season achievements. Hint: it doesn't. Read the article. There's quite a bit in it about postseason success. You pretty much sound like a teacher grading a paper, the kind of teacher who doesn't know the difference between what they think is relevant and what might be relevant beyond that, or don't understand that what others might consider other things to be important might differ from what they think is important. You're going on and on about silver and gold and bronze. That's not the point. "Best or 2nd best player on a team that's gone deep into the playoffs" is *clearly* more relevant.

I mean, why does it bode well for him? Is previous playoff success an indication of what will happen in the future? Is it some sort of guarantee that more postseason success will come?

  It bodes well for him because he's already shown that he's capable of being the best player on a team that's gone deep in the playoffs, and the bulk of the players on the list have more playoff success as their career progresses. It's not that complicated. And, while it is probably an indication of what will happen in the future it obviously isn't a guarantee.

I'm pretty sure it can't because you already agreed that postseason success is a team effort. Thus, future postseason success will not be dependent on any kind of Rondo's previous postseason accomplishments but more on the team constructed alongside Rondo.

  The fact that Rondo has been one of the top postseason performers in multiple playoffs is a big reason he's had the postseason success that he has and the fact that he's shown the ability to play at that level does impact the future. The future postseason success of Rondo's teams will be dependent on both the quality of his teammates *and* on his level play.

And furthermore, for your original statement of "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" to be noteworthy at all, it would have to mean something other than what the article already does a good job of saying (which is that you need multiple stars to be a contender/have playoff success).

  Clearly there's a difference between "noteworthy" and "noteworthy to you".

Otherwise, all you're getting at is that:
1. Rondo is a star (a bronze one as already shown in the article)
2. He's blessed to have been part of a team with multiple stars (because you aren't discrediting KG and PP)
3. And that team has enjoyed postseason success (the main point of the article)

  This would be accurate if all bronze stars were the best player on teams that made deep playoff runs and every team with multiple stars did as well.

And none of those points are particularly noteworthy because they're quite obvious as day. Rondo's success is the product of a good player being on a good team.

  Part of Rondo's success is due to his being on a good team, but much of it is due to his being able to dominate in the postseason. Your attempts to blatantly downplay his contribution to the team's success is in poor taste IMO.

To reiterate myself:

His playoff successes were achieved on a team with multiple stars, which pretty much backs up the point the writeup was driving home. Now, if Rondo had achieved that much success with Green and Sully [instead of PP and KG] who are decidedly lesser players, only then would it would be worth mentioning, specifically because it bucks the trend that the article presented.

  Yawn

[D.o.s.]

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.

You say it's far more difficult to do it other ways, but that's not really the case.  One aspect of this whole debate that I don't really think is discussed enough is the fact that even if teams do get a superstar at the top of the draft, those players rarely pan out to be championship leading type players while still on their rookie contracts. 

The problem with sacrificing everything to get high in the draft is that when good young players are stuck on crappy teams, they often want to get away to somewhere where they feel they have a chance of winning at their first available opportunity. 

This is one of the things that makes the be as bad as possible to get a high draft pick plan such a risky proposition.  Sure, 2007 worked out for us, but the majority of the time being bad just begets more being bad. 

The thing about getting a veteran superstar player through free agency or trade (although, I admit it's certainly not an easy thing to do considering those types of players' overall scarcity) is that you are getting a player who wants to be on your team and is getting paid good money to be there.  You are also getting a player who is seasoned enough to know how to win. 

If you can find a way to get one of those players to pair up with the homegrown superstar that you already have in place in a situation with good role players, a good coach, and a winning culture, then, in my opinion, you have a recipe for success. 

To me "Wiggins or Parker or Bust" isn't really much of a thoughtful plan for rebuilding a contender.

"
The problem with sacrificing everything to get high in the draft is that when good young players are stuck on crappy teams, they often want to get away to somewhere where they feel they have a chance of winning at their first available opportunity.  "

oh ok, thats why Kevin durant suffered through multiple horrid teams.

Well, uh, KD didn't have much of a choice, did he?

Also worth noting--the Thunder got measurably better every year once they finished bottoming out. That may sound like a no-brainer situation, but it's not necessarily the case. I suspect part of the reason the Bobcats went all in on Al Jefferson (and possibly contending for the 8th seed) was to keep their young players from totally giving up on their team like the post-Arenas Wizards.

[PhoSita]

This history suggests to me that if this year's Celtics are bad enough to get a top 3 lottery pick, we probably will not have a serious playoff team for at least the next 5 (maybe 10) years.

So?  That's not the point.

The idea is as simple as this:

- To win a championship, you need a superstar.

- The easiest way to get said superstar is to draft them, or trade draft assets for them.


Once we've acquired the superstar, then we can worry about building up the team around them.  I'm optimistic that if the player is a true superstar, we could build up a very good team around them relatively quickly.  The team might not grow into a top contender and possibly win a championship for another few years after that, but watching that journey would definitely be exciting.

To me, until the Celtics have a legitimate franchise guy, that central guy you can build a 55-60 win team around, acquiring that player should be the sole concern. 

Worry about how to keep that player, and how to build a great team around them, afterward.