Prepare for Gordon, Vonleh, or Smart

[nickagneta]

I'm actually confident no matter what pic we get we are going to be trading it for some one. Aldridge, Love, M. Gasol, there are a lot of options.

I could see a "#7 pick + filler for Josh SMith" type trade if the Celts decide to hang onto ROndo.   Then maybe you do Jeff Green + #18 for Asik.    Prob win 43 games right?

  We'd have Rondo, a mediocre scorer at the two, no sf to speak of, Asik and about 4 pfs. That's too imbalanced. Smith doesn't really work that well at sf.

Yeah, but if 2012 Rondo shows up, that's a solid 43 win team right there, right?

You might be over estimating that win total with that team LB. Teams could just foul Smith Asik and Rondo every possession in the fourth quarter and the C's would have a lot of 10-15 point 4th quarters and late losses.

[BballTim]

Question:  With Wiggins, Embiid, Parker and Exum off the board... who really fits with our existing talent?

Forget about Jeff Green and Bass.  I'm hoping we trade them for something.

Let's pretend that SUlly and Oly exceed expectations and become long-term starters... we're all rooting for that, right?   Every time Oly dumps 25... I get excited.

So we have our mainstays... Rondo, Bradley, Sully, Oly.   Sully/Oly are both PF, right?  Can you envision either as a long-term center?  I can't.   Can you imagine Oly at SF??     Is there a guy you can envision drafting, keeping, and slipping in with the rest of those guys??

Isn't Vonleh, Randle and Gordon all PFs?    Could Smart play SG?   I feel like anyone we draft will necessitate a trade at some point... either the player we draft or one of the "mainstays" already on the team.

At least with Wiggins/Parker, I could imagine dumping Green and sticking one of those guys at SF... PG - Rondo, SG - Bradley, SF - Parker, PF - SUlly, C - Oly....   but man that team would struggle defensively inside.   We got ourselves a flawed roster.

Thoughts?

  If they draft a wing odds are pretty high they'll try and make a trade for a center.

[LarBrd33]

Question:  With Wiggins, Embiid, Parker and Exum off the board... who really fits with our existing talent?

Forget about Jeff Green and Bass.  I'm hoping we trade them for something.

Let's pretend that SUlly and Oly exceed expectations and become long-term starters... we're all rooting for that, right?   Every time Oly dumps 25... I get excited.

So we have our mainstays... Rondo, Bradley, Sully, Oly.   Sully/Oly are both PF, right?  Can you envision either as a long-term center?  I can't.   Can you imagine Oly at SF??     Is there a guy you can envision drafting, keeping, and slipping in with the rest of those guys??

Isn't Vonleh, Randle and Gordon all PFs?    Could Smart play SG?   I feel like anyone we draft will necessitate a trade at some point... either the player we draft or one of the "mainstays" already on the team.

At least with Wiggins/Parker, I could imagine dumping Green and sticking one of those guys at SF... PG - Rondo, SG - Bradley, SF - Parker, PF - SUlly, C - Oly....   but man that team would struggle defensively inside.   We got ourselves a flawed roster.

Thoughts?

  If they draft a wing odds are pretty high they'll try and make a trade for a center.

What wings are available in our range.  Wiggins/Parker will be off the board.   Again... isn't Vonleh, Randle and Gordon all PF? 

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

I've no doubt he's a good player; he seems like he'd be a solid rotation guy in the NBA. My point is that we have more than enough power forwards already, so there's no point in drafting another unless Danny wants him to be the team's primary power forward for the next half decade or more—in which case, he needs to get rid of the power-forward surplus of the current roster.

In today's NBA, I think there's a lot less positional rigidity at the big man spots.  I think teams can successfully run out two guys who might be considered PFs first and foremost, as long as their games are complementary.

If Vonleh is the shot blocker / rim protector that I've seen him made out to be (at least potentially), then I think he could fit with Sullinger or Olynyk.

Eh, maybe. But I'm a firm believer that a team needs legitimate length and size to win a title; the only team in recent history that HASN'T followed that formula is the Heat, but they also happen to have the best player in the world. Of course, Danny doesn't have to get that size in the draft, but I doubt Boston's going to get a title without getting it somewhere. They're not going to win a title with a bunch of 6-9 "centers."

The Celtics did fairly well with a 6'9" center back in the sixties.

True, but there weren't a whole lot of 7-footers then, and you're also talking about one of the best to ever play the game. I can't be certain, but I'm pretty sure Vonleh's not in the same category.

[nickagneta]

I've no doubt he's a good player; he seems like he'd be a solid rotation guy in the NBA. My point is that we have more than enough power forwards already, so there's no point in drafting another unless Danny wants him to be the team's primary power forward for the next half decade or more—in which case, he needs to get rid of the power-forward surplus of the current roster.

In today's NBA, I think there's a lot less positional rigidity at the big man spots.  I think teams can successfully run out two guys who might be considered PFs first and foremost, as long as their games are complementary.

If Vonleh is the shot blocker / rim protector that I've seen him made out to be (at least potentially), then I think he could fit with Sullinger or Olynyk.

Eh, maybe. But I'm a firm believer that a team needs legitimate length and size to win a title; the only team in recent history that HASN'T followed that formula is the Heat, but they also happen to have the best player in the world. Of course, Danny doesn't have to get that size in the draft, but I doubt Boston's going to get a title without getting it somewhere. They're not going to win a title with a bunch of 6-9 "centers."

The Celtics did fairly well with a 6'9" center back in the sixties.

True, but there weren't a whole lot of 7-footers then, and you're also talking about one of the best to ever play the game. I can't be certain, but I'm pretty sure Vonleh's not in the same category.

I'm pretty sure every team in the league had at least one and sometimes two 7 footers back in the sixties. It was a much smaller and different league. Size at the center position was the premium of the time and the play underneath was akin to WWE wrestling. It was a much more physical game and huge 7 foot centers that banged the heck out of you was almost a prerequisite for a basketball team.

It was Russell, Wilt and Auerbach that broke that mold some back in the day. Chamberlain and Russell were the first two truly athletic centers in league history and helped to start to redefine the position.

[csfansince60s]

I'm actually confident no matter what pic we get we are going to be trading it for some one. Aldridge, Love, M. Gasol, there are a lot of options.

I could see a "#7 pick + filler for Josh SMith" type trade if the Celts decide to hang onto ROndo.   Then maybe you do Jeff Green + #18 for Asik.    Prob win 43 games right?

I like the idea of Josh Smith a lot. He could be our 2014 version of Ray Allen to lure our 2014 version of KG.

I think we get Smith without having to give up any picks at all. Jeff Green and Bogans for Josh Smith Detroit does. They get rid of a "mistake " contract in Smith, get Green at a position of need and cut Bogans and save $$$ right away to use to resign Monroe if they so desire.

We then trade Sully, Bradley and two future firsts for Melo and then KO or Bass and Joel Anthony plus a future first for Asik.

With our picks, we draft scorers: (best case Parker) or trade down for McDermott and get another asset, and then with the 18th one of Young, Stauskas, Warren, Hood, Levine or Napier.

Rondo/Pressey
Stauskas or Young/Johnson
Melo/McDermott or Parker/Crash
Smith/Olynyk/Bass
Asik/Hump

At crunch time, Hump, Olynyk/Bass, Melo, Stauskas/Young and Rondo .

[Sixth Man]

I've no doubt he's a good player; he seems like he'd be a solid rotation guy in the NBA. My point is that we have more than enough power forwards already, so there's no point in drafting another unless Danny wants him to be the team's primary power forward for the next half decade or more—in which case, he needs to get rid of the power-forward surplus of the current roster.

In today's NBA, I think there's a lot less positional rigidity at the big man spots.  I think teams can successfully run out two guys who might be considered PFs first and foremost, as long as their games are complementary.

If Vonleh is the shot blocker / rim protector that I've seen him made out to be (at least potentially), then I think he could fit with Sullinger or Olynyk.

Eh, maybe. But I'm a firm believer that a team needs legitimate length and size to win a title; the only team in recent history that HASN'T followed that formula is the Heat, but they also happen to have the best player in the world. Of course, Danny doesn't have to get that size in the draft, but I doubt Boston's going to get a title without getting it somewhere. They're not going to win a title with a bunch of 6-9 "centers."

The Celtics did fairly well with a 6'9" center back in the sixties.

Seems to me we won two titles in the 70's with a 6'9" center...

[chambers]

Did tankers really think we were going to drop the last 10+ games of the season?

The schedule was pathetically easy. Most figured 3 wins out of the last 8 games given two philly games. Just because we lost the first 4 of those last eight doesn't mean that further wins were not going to happen. If you were paying attention, the team was playing well in every one of those losses except Washington. They continued to play well and beat two teams that mailed in games.

Heck last night they followed the tankers handbook, sat their three best players, played rookies and DLeaguers, shot extremely well and won. What can you do? Tell the player to purposely miss shots and throw the game? All it takes is one player coming out and saying that and the team has the feds and the league looking into them.

The 3rd slot was never in play. Never. The team was playing too well and the schedule was too easy too think wins were not going to happen.

We were tied for the 3rd slot with 4 games to play.  How can you say it was "never in play", Nick?

Because given the way the team was playing and the schedule, as well as the schedule of the other teams involved, losing the rest of the games while the competition won their games was unrealistic.

The only way we lost the last couple of games is if the coach directed the players to throw the game, which I still think is illegal and I doubt the players would listen to the coach if he told them that.

Number 3 was never in play.

Tankers are really big into percentages and chances. Given 8 games left in the season, the C's in the middle of a losing streak but starting to play much better, the C's schedule, and the schedule of the competition, what was the likely percentage chance that the C's lost every game and finished 3rd? Probably a lot lower than trying to get into the top 3 picks from the 11th lottery slot. As is it, the odds played out as they should have and so, the 3rd spot was never in play.

Not true- the bobcats game we were heavy underdogs even with Rondo in the lineup. Once he was out we lose that game 7 times out of 10.
The cavs game was an anomally with Olynyk and co shooting the lights out and the Cavs needing to get their lottery odds up as high as possible.
No Rondo, no Sully and no Bayless and we still dominate....which is not what the bookmakers expected at all.
You're trying to mould an argument that's based around your line of thinking In the hope that this team may be actually trying to win some games.
The plan was to lose these games but our terrible players decided to have excellent shooting performances and our opponents fell apart (purposely in the cavs case).

Danny and Brad can't ask players to miss shots- they can't ask the Cavs to stink.
The team isn't playing well and they haven't 'started to improve lately', they're just hitying difficult shots against teams that should normally beat them who are tanking themselves or having an absurdly bad night.

There are no games out of the last 10 games other than the 2 Philly games that we had/have any business winning because we are terrible- we even sat Rondo an extra game lol.

Sometimes you get lucky and your terrible jumpshots go in and your opponents have an off night.
We are one of the worst teams in the league and to say we had no Edited.  Profanity and masked profanity are against forum rules and may result in discipline. at the 3rd seed is just not true. Completely biased opinion. It's closer to a 60/40 split that we SHOULD have the 3rd seed especially after losing to Philly and sitting Rondo vs Charlotte, THEN sitting Rondo, Sully and Bayless vs the Cavs.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

I've no doubt he's a good player; he seems like he'd be a solid rotation guy in the NBA. My point is that we have more than enough power forwards already, so there's no point in drafting another unless Danny wants him to be the team's primary power forward for the next half decade or more—in which case, he needs to get rid of the power-forward surplus of the current roster.

In today's NBA, I think there's a lot less positional rigidity at the big man spots.  I think teams can successfully run out two guys who might be considered PFs first and foremost, as long as their games are complementary.

If Vonleh is the shot blocker / rim protector that I've seen him made out to be (at least potentially), then I think he could fit with Sullinger or Olynyk.

Eh, maybe. But I'm a firm believer that a team needs legitimate length and size to win a title; the only team in recent history that HASN'T followed that formula is the Heat, but they also happen to have the best player in the world. Of course, Danny doesn't have to get that size in the draft, but I doubt Boston's going to get a title without getting it somewhere. They're not going to win a title with a bunch of 6-9 "centers."

The Celtics did fairly well with a 6'9" center back in the sixties.

Seems to me we won two titles in the 70's with a 6'9" center...

As with someone else's example of Russell, you're highlighting exceptions to the rule. Other than a team with LeBron, no team in today's NBA is going to win a title with Kris Humphries, Jared Sullinger, Brandon Bass, Noah Vonleh, Carlos Boozer, or any other 6-9ish player manning the center position. I'd think that the Celtics getting routinely killed by length inside would have hammered this point home with fans by now.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

I've no doubt he's a good player; he seems like he'd be a solid rotation guy in the NBA. My point is that we have more than enough power forwards already, so there's no point in drafting another unless Danny wants him to be the team's primary power forward for the next half decade or more—in which case, he needs to get rid of the power-forward surplus of the current roster.

In today's NBA, I think there's a lot less positional rigidity at the big man spots.  I think teams can successfully run out two guys who might be considered PFs first and foremost, as long as their games are complementary.

If Vonleh is the shot blocker / rim protector that I've seen him made out to be (at least potentially), then I think he could fit with Sullinger or Olynyk.

Eh, maybe. But I'm a firm believer that a team needs legitimate length and size to win a title; the only team in recent history that HASN'T followed that formula is the Heat, but they also happen to have the best player in the world. Of course, Danny doesn't have to get that size in the draft, but I doubt Boston's going to get a title without getting it somewhere. They're not going to win a title with a bunch of 6-9 "centers."

The Celtics did fairly well with a 6'9" center back in the sixties.

True, but there weren't a whole lot of 7-footers then, and you're also talking about one of the best to ever play the game. I can't be certain, but I'm pretty sure Vonleh's not in the same category.

I'm pretty sure every team in the league had at least one and sometimes two 7 footers back in the sixties. It was a much smaller and different league. Size at the center position was the premium of the time and the play underneath was akin to WWE wrestling. It was a much more physical game and huge 7 foot centers that banged the heck out of you was almost a prerequisite for a basketball team.

It was Russell, Wilt and Auerbach that broke that mold some back in the day. Chamberlain and Russell were the first two truly athletic centers in league history and helped to start to redefine the position.

Let me rephrase my previous statement: There weren't a whole lot of great 7-footers back then. As you say, there was Russell and Wilt, then everybody else. And Russell was a freak of an athlete, a guy who could get a rebound, take it the length of the floor, and then finish with authority. Those two are once-(or twice-)in-a-lifetime players. So unless a 6-9 version of LeBron comes along, Boston's not winning a title with a Lilliputian front line.

[colincb]

"I'm pretty sure every team in the league had at least one and sometimes two 7 footers back in the sixties. It was a much smaller and different league. Size at the center position was the premium of the time and the play underneath was akin to WWE wrestling. It was a much more physical game and huge 7 foot centers that banged the heck out of you was almost a prerequisite for a basketball team."

UBWrong. There were very few 7 footers in the 60s and they were mostly backups and benchwarmers including the immortal Hank Finkel. Basketball-reference.com is your friend.

Another 5 championships for 6'9 and under centers  in Unseld, Hayes, Wallace, Reed, and Neil Johnston. Only Wallace is not a HOFer, but he was a 4X DPOY.

I haven't seen Vonleh play, and longer is better, but there were a lot of 6-10 guys who were great centers too, so let's not get carried away thinking we need the next Roger Murdock before we can hoist #18.

[nickagneta]

chambers, what you are failing to grasp is the Celtics are trying to win games. They are not trying to lose. They are not trying to tank. The notion that they are is actually quite silly. They are trying to win. NBA players do not try to lose. Neither do most if not all coaches.

And you can sure as hell be guaranteed that players don't think that losing is in their best interest just so they can draft and play with a better ranked rookie the next year. If you think vet players believe that adding some rookie to the squad is going to somehow make a team they are going to be on that much better, then you clearly have never been around a real locker room of any kind before. Its not in the DNA of any competitive athlete to lose and vets think rookies know nothing and add little value to a team. Thats just the way of sports. Rookies are there to haze and carry your bags, not carry you to title contention.

[nickagneta]

The 3rd slot was never in play. With 8 games remaining the C's were in the 4th or 5th slot. Can't remember. They were about to play the easiest part of their schedule. They were winning games at a clip of over 30% against a strength of schedule that was much stronger than the strength of schedule that remained. Its pretty easy to see from those numbers that the C's were most likely going to win 2 games and probably three.

I don't care what games they won or lost, sheer law of averages had them winning at least two games and even more so given they were already on a losing streak heading into the last 8 games. The specifics of why they won or lost the games is irrelevant. Facts are the numbers pointed to finishing 3rd as the greatest of long shots. It was never within their grasp unless they purposely decided to lose, which this team has shown no proof of doing all year.

[LarBrd33]

Kings win tonight means we are currently 6th in the tank rank...and can't fall any further.  Our worst-case scenario is now pick #9.   

[pokeKingCurtis]

The 3rd slot was never in play. With 8 games remaining the C's were in the 4th or 5th slot. Can't remember. They were about to play the easiest part of their schedule. They were winning games at a clip of over 30% against a strength of schedule that was much stronger than the strength of schedule that remained. Its pretty easy to see from those numbers that the C's were most likely going to win 2 games and probably three.

I don't care what games they won or lost, sheer law of averages had them winning at least two games and even more so given they were already on a losing streak heading into the last 8 games. The specifics of why they won or lost the games is irrelevant. Facts are the numbers pointed to finishing 3rd as the greatest of long shots. It was never within their grasp unless they purposely decided to lose, which this team has shown no proof of doing all year.

This reminds me of how bad of a losing streak we had after the injuries and trades.

And only after that ridiculous losing streak did we really fall out the playoffs. We then slowly started to slip into lottery "contention".

Putting all this into perspective, a 2 game winning streak is nothing. An "elite seed" in the draft, perhaps, was just never meant to be. This team was bad but never that bad *thanks to Stevens's coaching.