Why don't people think we'll be better?

[Mr October]

1. Adding rookies doesn't tend to make you better right away when you are a bad team. So I don't care if Smart and Young were added to the team that doiesn't make this team better next year because of them, it makes the team next year worse and the future better.

2. This team, if injuries occur, and they will, is not deep in talent and will suffer greatly when injuries to players happen.

3. I lot of the idea of us getting better is that the young players will get better and add more to the team. Many times, that doesn't happen. For all we know the best years of Sully and KO may have already happened. Probably not but it happens sometimes that young players don't progress a bunch every single year.  We might get stagnation

4. The team is still horribly unbalanced with no real starting center, three PFs that will vie to be the starter, and a raft of guards. The team has no center, no star, no go to scorer, it lacks great outside shooting and rebounding and its defense at the end of last year look atrocious after looking so good to start the year.


I see maybe a mild uptick in wins, 3-5, as a possibility but they could easily be worse as well. We will see.

TP. I agree with all of this.

I also want to remind the youth obsessed that players are at their best in their prime years, typically age 27-31. That is when they have a great blend of youthful energy and athleticism combined with experience and knowledge of how to play the game.

20-23 year olds typically don't improve your ability to win. As Nick said, the improve your future if they actually improve.

[LooseCannon]

making the playoffs could be the worst thing for this team.

Making the playoffs is probably the best thing for this team if it wants to sign an impact free agent next summer.

because that's worked in the past.

The ability to join a winner is more important than location or weather in drawing quality free agents without overpaying them and sometimes even getting them to sacrifice a few dollars to help build a team.

[wdleehi]

Usually teams that get better add impact players.  The Celtics did not a clear impact player.


Two rookies.


Two young players that have disappointed two bad teams. 



These are good moves for the position the Celtics are in, but they are not the moves that springboard the team up the rankings unless one of the rookies is an all-star level rookie. 

[RAcker]

Usually teams that get better add impact players.  The Celtics did not a clear impact player.


Two rookies.


Two young players that have disappointed two bad teams. 



These are good moves for the position the Celtics are in, but they are not the moves that springboard the team up the rankings unless one of the rookies is an all-star level rookie.

Agreed.  There just aren't big men that are impact players out there like Mark Blount anymore. 

[RAcker]

In all seriousness, our weaknesses are glaring.  We need an Alpha Male scorer and experience.  The first is hard to come by but could happen overnight if lucky.  The second needs time, time and unfortunately time.

I am giving myself a motivational speech on patience almost daily. But one thing I think is clear is that Brad Stevens is a perfect coach for this type of project.

[SHAQATTACK]

 being better ...by 10 games

Equals some happy impatient fans something to cheer

Could cost another shot at the number one pick.....

Bad thing...when your city is not a star destination

[DraftSmart33]

being better ...by 10 games

Equals some happy impatient fans something to cheer

Could cost another shot at the number one pick.....

Bad thing...when your city is not a star destination

The better our team performs the more valuable our trade assets are = greatest likely hood of landing a star player and the most likely way to pull in a free agent with our available cap space.  DA has done a great job of filling this team with tradable assets.

2013
Young Assets: Sullinger, KO, AB
Vets: Bass, Lee
Expiring: Hump
(assuming we are keeping Rondo and Green)

2014
Young Assets: Sullinger, KO, AB, Turner, Zeller, Smart, Young
Vets:
Expiring: Thornton, Bass, Joel
Non Guaranteed: Boguns

Not to mention trade exceptions and draft picks....Last year being bad made sense....I don't think it's the same situation this year.

[Moranis]

I think we win 25 games or so.  Just the way I see it.  I see Milwaukee as the only team clearly worse than Boston in the East (though Orlando and Philly certainly could be).

[DraftSmart33]

I think we win 25 games or so.  Just the way I see it.  I see Milwaukee as the only team clearly worse than Boston in the East (though Orlando and Philly certainly could be).

You don't think having Rondo alone for an entire season vs. the few games we had him for is worth a few more wins?

I see them as a 30 win team and that is thought of this thread...never said playoff...just think they have more depth and Rondo for a full year and should win a handful more games because of it.

[BballTim]

this team has to be better. I think Rondo will be better, I don't care if people hate him, love him or whatever, he wasn't healthy last yr., he wasn't playing a normal schedule of games, he'll be better and we'll be better.

and I have to assume sully and olynyk will be better....if sully hasn't eaten his way outta the league between now and the start of the season.

but all of this doesn't really matter. last season we still had a legitimate shot at the playoffs I think with like 3 weeks to go in the season. and that's why i'm puzzled as to why we're loading this team with guys that will get us to the 8th seed?

in the east we could have 28 - 30 wins and make the playoffs. it's a bad time to be mediocre.

also every yr. there's always 1 or 2 teams that don't live up to the hype esp. in the east. again we could find ourselves in or close to the playoffs without even trying.

The bar for getting into the East last year, when the power was more concentrated, was 38 wins. I don't see where 30 wins gets us a spot this year.

I agree that we will be better than last year, but I don't think we're in danger of making the playoffs (which is an awful phrase to type).

in reality 30 wins shouldn't get us in the playoffs and it probably won't. the eastern teams 'should' be better, but then again there were teams last yr. that 'should've been better' in the east and they weren't.

but still, if 38 was the bar and we were 30 and still had a shot until like 3 - 4 weeks to go in the season. it's too close. we were a lottery team that could've made the playoffs. if we earned a playoff spot - then great. but making the playoffs because we're the better of the bad teams isn't the same as earning it.

  If you finish with a better record than enough teams to make the playoffs you've earned it.

[Rondo9]

I think we win 25 games or so.  Just the way I see it.  I see Milwaukee as the only team clearly worse than Boston in the East (though Orlando and Philly certainly could be).

You don't think having Rondo alone for an entire season vs. the few games we had him for is worth a few more wins?

I see them as a 30 win team and that is thought of this thread...never said playoff...just think they have more depth and Rondo for a full year and should win a handful more games because of it.

The Celtics should be at least better than the Bucks, Magic and the Sixers. They not are THAT bad.

[Evantime34]

1. Adding rookies doesn't tend to make you better right away when you are a bad team. So I don't care if Smart and Young were added to the team that doiesn't make this team better next year because of them, it makes the team next year worse and the future better.

2. This team, if injuries occur, and they will, is not deep in talent and will suffer greatly when injuries to players happen.

3. I lot of the idea of us getting better is that the young players will get better and add more to the team. Many times, that doesn't happen. For all we know the best years of Sully and KO may have already happened. Probably not but it happens sometimes that young players don't progress a bunch every single year.  We might get stagnation

4. The team is still horribly unbalanced with no real starting center, three PFs that will vie to be the starter, and a raft of guards. The team has no center, no star, no go to scorer, it lacks great outside shooting and rebounding and its defense at the end of last year look atrocious after looking so good to start the year.


I see maybe a mild uptick in wins, 3-5, as a possibility but they could easily be worse as well. We will see.

1. I think it depends who the rookies are replacing. I expect Young to get Johnson's minutes which should be a wash. I expect Smart to get most of Bayless, minutes which I think will be an improvement.
2. We dealt with a lot of injuries last year and aren't we deeper than last year?
3. Even though players don't improve all the time, they are more likely to improve than regress at a young age. It stands to reason that at least one of Olynyk or Sullinger will improve.
4. Certainly unbalanced can't argue that, but i'm still hoping they make a bid to add another center.

I think they will be ten games better than last year. If Rondo matches his peak season he will be good for seven more wins on his own.

[86MaxwellSmart]

Last season was an Unofficial TANK season....we will try to Win all games this season.

We WILL be better...I'll say 40-45 wins.

[nickagneta]

1. Adding rookies doesn't tend to make you better right away when you are a bad team. So I don't care if Smart and Young were added to the team that doiesn't make this team better next year because of them, it makes the team next year worse and the future better.

2. This team, if injuries occur, and they will, is not deep in talent and will suffer greatly when injuries to players happen.

3. I lot of the idea of us getting better is that the young players will get better and add more to the team. Many times, that doesn't happen. For all we know the best years of Sully and KO may have already happened. Probably not but it happens sometimes that young players don't progress a bunch every single year.  We might get stagnation

4. The team is still horribly unbalanced with no real starting center, three PFs that will vie to be the starter, and a raft of guards. The team has no center, no star, no go to scorer, it lacks great outside shooting and rebounding and its defense at the end of last year look atrocious after looking so good to start the year.


I see maybe a mild uptick in wins, 3-5, as a possibility but they could easily be worse as well. We will see.

1. I think it depends who the rookies are replacing. I expect Young to get Johnson's minutes which should be a wash. I expect Smart to get most of Bayless, minutes which I think will be an improvement.
2. We dealt with a lot of injuries last year and aren't we deeper than last year?
3. Even though players don't improve all the time, they are more likely to improve than regress at a young age. It stands to reason that at least one of Olynyk or Sullinger will improve.
4. Certainly unbalanced can't argue that, but i'm still hoping they make a bid to add another center.

I think they will be ten games better than last year. If Rondo matches his peak season he will be good for seven more wins on his own.

All very fair retorts.

I would say I think Young and Smart would be worse than the players they are replacing, even the ones you mentioned. Agree to disagree there. As for injuries, all in all I thought we were fairly healthy last year except for Rondo. That makes a big difference but if this year more than one starter goes down for more than half the season, that would be bad and no, I don't think we are deeper than last year. Only about the same. I also hope we land a center, though I can't for the life of me see who that could be.

10 wins is possible but I also think that is maybe the most positive outlook one can have on this team. After all, you can only have so much evidence that the C's win more without Rondo than with him before you have to start giving that some credence. Adding a healthy Rondo might just be a bad thing.

[Rondo9]

1. Adding rookies doesn't tend to make you better right away when you are a bad team. So I don't care if Smart and Young were added to the team that doiesn't make this team better next year because of them, it makes the team next year worse and the future better.

2. This team, if injuries occur, and they will, is not deep in talent and will suffer greatly when injuries to players happen.

3. I lot of the idea of us getting better is that the young players will get better and add more to the team. Many times, that doesn't happen. For all we know the best years of Sully and KO may have already happened. Probably not but it happens sometimes that young players don't progress a bunch every single year.  We might get stagnation

4. The team is still horribly unbalanced with no real starting center, three PFs that will vie to be the starter, and a raft of guards. The team has no center, no star, no go to scorer, it lacks great outside shooting and rebounding and its defense at the end of last year look atrocious after looking so good to start the year.


I see maybe a mild uptick in wins, 3-5, as a possibility but they could easily be worse as well. We will see.

1. I think it depends who the rookies are replacing. I expect Young to get Johnson's minutes which should be a wash. I expect Smart to get most of Bayless, minutes which I think will be an improvement.
2. We dealt with a lot of injuries last year and aren't we deeper than last year?
3. Even though players don't improve all the time, they are more likely to improve than regress at a young age. It stands to reason that at least one of Olynyk or Sullinger will improve.
4. Certainly unbalanced can't argue that, but i'm still hoping they make a bid to add another center.

I think they will be ten games better than last year. If Rondo matches his peak season he will be good for seven more wins on his own.

To add to what he said, there are more ballhandlers on the team than last year. Instead relying on Pressy (!) and Rondo. You have Rondo, Smart and Turner type of players who can penetrate and kick out to the open man.