Tank City USA - Boston

[Moranis]

The only thing that Philly has done so far is put together an all-star team of "potential".  Hasn't paid an ounce of dividends yet unless you count one season's "sucktitude" leading to another high pick of "untapped potential".  On paper it might look good, but it hasn't translated to anything yet.

Yeah but that is a better position than Boston who has an injured older Rondo in the last year of his contract and the possibility that Marcus Smart might be very good.  You know what everyone else is and they aren't superstars.  Philly has the reigning rookie of the year in MCW, has a guy who very easily could win the rookie of the year in Noel, has another guy that might win the rookie of the year next year (already on the team), one of the best players in Europe, and will very likely have another top 5 pick next year. 

Boston doesn't have that.  It has a year where it was a bad team, but not so bad that it could land a top 5 talent (just one less win and the team has Exum - now sure Smart might end up better than Exum, but I think most people right now think Exum is a better prospect).  This year Boston looks to be a 22-28 win team again.  What is the point in that.  Either be very very bad or be good.  This mid level lottery team is just not a position to be in.

That's an awful lot of "might"s and "could"s to give Philly the edge, which is what Dons and I mean about potential being overweighted. 

Here's the case for our side as I see it:

- We have veterans who can help with young player development.  This is the single biggest downside to Philly's approach that gets ignored.  Centering your team around a bunch of rookie contract guys all trying to put up big numbers to cash in on their 2nd contract - guys who also know wins aren't what your organization wants right now - and supplementing them with a bunch of D-Leaguers just clinging to the league is a recipe for terrible habits, selfishness, and discord.  This isn't fantasy ball - environment and culture is crucial for young guys.

- We have assets we haven't used yet, unlike Philly who's completely sold off all their established talent.  There's "potential" that goes unaccounted for - we can still make meaningful trades.

- A "could" on our side - Marcus Smart could also be rookie of the year (which you aren't factoring in) or more importantly, wind up better than whoever wins it. 

- Unlike Philly many of our first round picks aren't based on our own team's performance.  We can play to win and get better and still get good picks if Brooklyn implodes.  We also have many more 1sts than Philly does right now, which gives us more to use in deals and a better chance to take risks later in the round.  Philly has no choice but to suck and then flip the magic "reverse winning %" switch a few years later.

I prefer our position both in the short-term and the long-term.  I think Philly, and people who support Philly's approach, are going to find out over the next few years what the success rate on "might"s and "could"s tends to be.

Philly does have some veterans.  They have Jason Richardson, Mbah a Moute, and our very own Keith Bogans.  And they don't have that many DLeaguers, probably as many as Boston has when all is said and done.  Not that I buy into any of that crap anyway.  The good players learn how to win whether there are veterans there are not.  Bad players, even with veterans around, do not.  I mean Durant (and Green) won 20 and 23 games his first two years, he jumped to 50 in year 3.  His team was mostly rookie year players during that entire time period (a few veterans here and there, but not many).  I mean the 08/09 team that won 23 games had 6 of the 20 players that played for them with more than 5 years experience and only 2 over 10 years (Joe Smith and Malik Rose that played in a combined 56 games).  I think Durant figured it out just fine.  He is clearly not the only example (James in Cleveland, Jordan in Chicago, etc.).  Teams like the ones that Magic, Bird, and Duncan get onto are very rare.  Most of the all time greats start out on bad teams filled with young guys.  I'm certainly not suggesting that Philly has anyone even in the league of those guys, but what I'm suggesting is, veteran influence is a bunch of hog wash.  So is this notion that you have to be on winning teams and that losing is somehow a bad thing.  Sure losing for years on end is bad, but a couple or few losing seasons to start your career is definitely not a bad thing, in fact Cleveland was hurt long term by just how good James made them his rookie year.  Seattle/OKC benefited greatly from those 20 and 23 win seasons as those seasons led to Westbrook and Harden (Ibaka was a later 1st as well during that period and obviously Green came in with Durant). 

As far as playing for contracts, all rookies do that, and almost all that work out end up right back on the team that drafted them.  The difficulty is keeping them for that 3rd contract (see James, Howard, Bosh, etc.).  I mean even Tim Duncan flirted heavily in leaving San An for Orlando at one point. 

[fairweatherfan]

The only thing that Philly has done so far is put together an all-star team of "potential".  Hasn't paid an ounce of dividends yet unless you count one season's "sucktitude" leading to another high pick of "untapped potential".  On paper it might look good, but it hasn't translated to anything yet.

Yeah but that is a better position than Boston who has an injured older Rondo in the last year of his contract and the possibility that Marcus Smart might be very good.  You know what everyone else is and they aren't superstars.  Philly has the reigning rookie of the year in MCW, has a guy who very easily could win the rookie of the year in Noel, has another guy that might win the rookie of the year next year (already on the team), one of the best players in Europe, and will very likely have another top 5 pick next year. 

Boston doesn't have that.  It has a year where it was a bad team, but not so bad that it could land a top 5 talent (just one less win and the team has Exum - now sure Smart might end up better than Exum, but I think most people right now think Exum is a better prospect).  This year Boston looks to be a 22-28 win team again.  What is the point in that.  Either be very very bad or be good.  This mid level lottery team is just not a position to be in.

That's an awful lot of "might"s and "could"s to give Philly the edge, which is what Dons and I mean about potential being overweighted. 

Here's the case for our side as I see it:

- We have veterans who can help with young player development.  This is the single biggest downside to Philly's approach that gets ignored.  Centering your team around a bunch of rookie contract guys all trying to put up big numbers to cash in on their 2nd contract - guys who also know wins aren't what your organization wants right now - and supplementing them with a bunch of D-Leaguers just clinging to the league is a recipe for terrible habits, selfishness, and discord.  This isn't fantasy ball - environment and culture is crucial for young guys.

- We have assets we haven't used yet, unlike Philly who's completely sold off all their established talent.  There's "potential" that goes unaccounted for - we can still make meaningful trades.

- A "could" on our side - Marcus Smart could also be rookie of the year (which you aren't factoring in) or more importantly, wind up better than whoever wins it. 

- Unlike Philly many of our first round picks aren't based on our own team's performance.  We can play to win and get better and still get good picks if Brooklyn implodes.  We also have many more 1sts than Philly does right now, which gives us more to use in deals and a better chance to take risks later in the round.  Philly has no choice but to suck and then flip the magic "reverse winning %" switch a few years later.

I prefer our position both in the short-term and the long-term.  I think Philly, and people who support Philly's approach, are going to find out over the next few years what the success rate on "might"s and "could"s tends to be.

Philly does have some veterans.  They have Jason Richardson, Mbah a Moute, and our very own Keith Bogans.  And they don't have that many DLeaguers, probably as many as Boston has when all is said and done.  Not that I buy into any of that crap anyway.  The good players learn how to win whether there are veterans there are not.  Bad players, even with veterans around, do not.  I mean Durant (and Green) won 20 and 23 games his first two years, he jumped to 50 in year 3.  His team was mostly rookie year players during that entire time period (a few veterans here and there, but not many).  I mean the 08/09 team that won 23 games had 6 of the 20 players that played for them with more than 5 years experience and only 2 over 10 years (Joe Smith and Malik Rose that played in a combined 56 games).  I think Durant figured it out just fine.  He is clearly not the only example (James in Cleveland, Jordan in Chicago, etc.).  Teams like the ones that Magic, Bird, and Duncan get onto are very rare.  Most of the all time greats start out on bad teams filled with young guys.  I'm certainly not suggesting that Philly has anyone even in the league of those guys, but what I'm suggesting is, veteran influence is a bunch of hog wash.  So is this notion that you have to be on winning teams and that losing is somehow a bad thing.  Sure losing for years on end is bad, but a couple or few losing seasons to start your career is definitely not a bad thing, in fact Cleveland was hurt long term by just how good James made them his rookie year.  Seattle/OKC benefited greatly from those 20 and 23 win seasons as those seasons led to Westbrook and Harden (Ibaka was a later 1st as well during that period and obviously Green came in with Durant). 

As far as playing for contracts, all rookies do that, and almost all that work out end up right back on the team that drafted them.  The difficulty is keeping them for that 3rd contract (see James, Howard, Bosh, etc.).  I mean even Tim Duncan flirted heavily in leaving San An for Orlando at one point.

Philly's vets don't remotely compare with established veteran role players like Joe Smith, Kurt Thomas, Chucky Atkins, Nick Collison, Adrian Griffin, Malik Rose, Earl Watson, Kevin Ollie etc, that surrounded Durant and Westbrook in their first couple of years.  Those guys don't have to play or be great players to teach good habits and a mature approach to the NBA.  But maybe that's just a matter of perception.

And I notice you keep talking about all-time greats, as if Philly has any.  Their young talent doesn't compare with Durant or Westbrook (though I suppose they "could" draft guys like that, or their guys "might" become that good later!) 

We'll have to agree to disagree.  In the meantime, wake me up when Philly's super-optimum strategy results in a better team than ours anywhere outside of a crystal ball.

[Mr October]

The only thing that Philly has done so far is put together an all-star team of "potential".  Hasn't paid an ounce of dividends yet unless you count one season's "sucktitude" leading to another high pick of "untapped potential".  On paper it might look good, but it hasn't translated to anything yet.

Yeah but that is a better position than Boston who has an injured older Rondo in the last year of his contract and the possibility that Marcus Smart might be very good.  You know what everyone else is and they aren't superstars.  Philly has the reigning rookie of the year in MCW, has a guy who very easily could win the rookie of the year in Noel, has another guy that might win the rookie of the year next year (already on the team), one of the best players in Europe, and will very likely have another top 5 pick next year. 

Boston doesn't have that.  It has a year where it was a bad team, but not so bad that it could land a top 5 talent (just one less win and the team has Exum - now sure Smart might end up better than Exum, but I think most people right now think Exum is a better prospect).  This year Boston looks to be a 22-28 win team again.  What is the point in that.  Either be very very bad or be good.  This mid level lottery team is just not a position to be in.

I would rather have Smart than Carter-Williams. I am jealous of Noel and Embiid for sure. But that is all i am envious of concerning Philly. lets let Philly develop those guys get them healthy, and then when they want to bail, we can swoop in an sign them. 

If the Celtics win 22-28 games they will probably land the top 5 pick you want. Next years draft could be loaded with bigs up and down the lottery.

What should the Celtics be doing to getting to title contention faster?
Or what do you want to see them do to tank as hard as Philly?

probably too late to do much of anything at this point, but at the trade deadline last year, I would have been very aggressive in either adding to the roster or dumping veterans, which would have then continued into this summer.

I imagine Ainge was aggressively trying to move guys like Humphries, Bass and Green. But with bad contracts, Hump and Bass might have costed the Celtics a pick to move them, just to get them off the roster. They had to give up a second rounder to move Lee who is on a fair market deal after all.

And no one want to return anything close to equal value for Jeff Green. A lot of those vets are best served as temporary mentors and contracts to remove from the cap when their contracts end.

I am impressed with what the celtics got for Crawford and then the trade exception. Danny strikes when he can.

[Moranis]

The only thing that Philly has done so far is put together an all-star team of "potential".  Hasn't paid an ounce of dividends yet unless you count one season's "sucktitude" leading to another high pick of "untapped potential".  On paper it might look good, but it hasn't translated to anything yet.

Yeah but that is a better position than Boston who has an injured older Rondo in the last year of his contract and the possibility that Marcus Smart might be very good.  You know what everyone else is and they aren't superstars.  Philly has the reigning rookie of the year in MCW, has a guy who very easily could win the rookie of the year in Noel, has another guy that might win the rookie of the year next year (already on the team), one of the best players in Europe, and will very likely have another top 5 pick next year. 

Boston doesn't have that.  It has a year where it was a bad team, but not so bad that it could land a top 5 talent (just one less win and the team has Exum - now sure Smart might end up better than Exum, but I think most people right now think Exum is a better prospect).  This year Boston looks to be a 22-28 win team again.  What is the point in that.  Either be very very bad or be good.  This mid level lottery team is just not a position to be in.

That's an awful lot of "might"s and "could"s to give Philly the edge, which is what Dons and I mean about potential being overweighted. 

Here's the case for our side as I see it:

- We have veterans who can help with young player development.  This is the single biggest downside to Philly's approach that gets ignored.  Centering your team around a bunch of rookie contract guys all trying to put up big numbers to cash in on their 2nd contract - guys who also know wins aren't what your organization wants right now - and supplementing them with a bunch of D-Leaguers just clinging to the league is a recipe for terrible habits, selfishness, and discord.  This isn't fantasy ball - environment and culture is crucial for young guys.

- We have assets we haven't used yet, unlike Philly who's completely sold off all their established talent.  There's "potential" that goes unaccounted for - we can still make meaningful trades.

- A "could" on our side - Marcus Smart could also be rookie of the year (which you aren't factoring in) or more importantly, wind up better than whoever wins it. 

- Unlike Philly many of our first round picks aren't based on our own team's performance.  We can play to win and get better and still get good picks if Brooklyn implodes.  We also have many more 1sts than Philly does right now, which gives us more to use in deals and a better chance to take risks later in the round.  Philly has no choice but to suck and then flip the magic "reverse winning %" switch a few years later.

I prefer our position both in the short-term and the long-term.  I think Philly, and people who support Philly's approach, are going to find out over the next few years what the success rate on "might"s and "could"s tends to be.

Philly does have some veterans.  They have Jason Richardson, Mbah a Moute, and our very own Keith Bogans.  And they don't have that many DLeaguers, probably as many as Boston has when all is said and done.  Not that I buy into any of that crap anyway.  The good players learn how to win whether there are veterans there are not.  Bad players, even with veterans around, do not.  I mean Durant (and Green) won 20 and 23 games his first two years, he jumped to 50 in year 3.  His team was mostly rookie year players during that entire time period (a few veterans here and there, but not many).  I mean the 08/09 team that won 23 games had 6 of the 20 players that played for them with more than 5 years experience and only 2 over 10 years (Joe Smith and Malik Rose that played in a combined 56 games).  I think Durant figured it out just fine.  He is clearly not the only example (James in Cleveland, Jordan in Chicago, etc.).  Teams like the ones that Magic, Bird, and Duncan get onto are very rare.  Most of the all time greats start out on bad teams filled with young guys.  I'm certainly not suggesting that Philly has anyone even in the league of those guys, but what I'm suggesting is, veteran influence is a bunch of hog wash.  So is this notion that you have to be on winning teams and that losing is somehow a bad thing.  Sure losing for years on end is bad, but a couple or few losing seasons to start your career is definitely not a bad thing, in fact Cleveland was hurt long term by just how good James made them his rookie year.  Seattle/OKC benefited greatly from those 20 and 23 win seasons as those seasons led to Westbrook and Harden (Ibaka was a later 1st as well during that period and obviously Green came in with Durant). 

As far as playing for contracts, all rookies do that, and almost all that work out end up right back on the team that drafted them.  The difficulty is keeping them for that 3rd contract (see James, Howard, Bosh, etc.).  I mean even Tim Duncan flirted heavily in leaving San An for Orlando at one point.

Philly's vets don't remotely compare with established veteran role players like Joe Smith, Kurt Thomas, Chucky Atkins, Nick Collison, Adrian Griffin, Malik Rose, Earl Watson, Kevin Ollie etc, that surrounded Durant and Westbrook in their first couple of years.  Those guys don't have to play or be great players to teach good habits and a mature approach to the NBA.  But maybe that's just a matter of perception.

And I notice you keep talking about all-time greats, as if Philly has any.  Their young talent doesn't compare with Durant or Westbrook (though I suppose they "could" draft guys like that, or their guys "might" become that good later!) 

We'll have to agree to disagree.  In the meantime, wake me up when Philly's super-optimum strategy results in a better team than ours anywhere outside of a crystal ball.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Philly has a better record than Boston this year.  Of course I really like Noel.  I think he could be a real player.

[MBunge]

Philly has the reigning rookie of the year in MCW, has a guy who very easily could win the rookie of the year in Noel, has another guy that might win the rookie of the year next year (already on the team), one of the best players in Europe, and will very likely have another top 5 pick next year. 

Noel is not going to "easily" win rookie of the year when Jabari Parker, a player vastly superior, is also in the running.  Embiid has about as much chance of never playing a fuly season for Philly as he does winning rookie of the year two seasons down the road.  I believe Ricky Rubio was also "one of the best players in Europe".  And as for that reigning rookie of the year?

Evan Turner per 36 minute stats last season -
.425%
.321% from three
6.5 rebounds
3.8 assists
1 steal
2.8 turnovers
16.6 points

Michael Carter Williams per 36 minute stats last season -
.405%
.264% from three
6.5 rebounds
6.6 assists
1.9 steals
3.7 turnovers
17.4 points

And MCW is three years younger but he's 22 to Turner's 25, so it's not like he's 19 or something.

Mike

here are some other per 36 numbers for R.O.Y. wings (and Lillard since he was the 2nd most recent)

Lillard
17.8 p, 2.9 r, 6.0 a, 0.8 s, 2.8 t, 42.9/36.8

Evans
19.5 p, 5.1 r, 5.6 a, 1.5 s, 2.9 t, 45.8/25.5

Rose
16.3 p, 3.8 r, 6.1 a, 0.8 s, 2.4 t, 47.5/22.2

Durant
21.1 p, 4.5 r, 2.5 a, 1.0 s, 3.0 t, 43.0/28.8

Roy
17.1 p, 4.5 r, 4.1 a, 1.2 s, 2.1 t, 45.6/37.7

James
19.1 p, 5.0 r, 5.4 a, 1.5 s, 3.1 t, 41.7/29.0


I have no idea if MCW will end up more like Tyreke Evans or Lebron James, but to somehow act like his rookies stats are bad by coming him to Evan Turner, doesn't exactly prove your point when he compares very favorably with Lebron James, Kevin Durant, and Derrick Rose's rookie seasons.  I mean unless you don't think the last 6 MVP award winners are good basketball players anyway.

All of those guys, except Roy, came into the league at least 2 years younger than MCW.

When LeBron was MCW's age, he was putting up per 36 stats of 24.1 pts on .476 shooting, .319 from 3.

Rose at 22?  Per 36 of 24.1 pts on .445 shooting, .332 from 3, and 7.4 assists.

Durant at 22?  Per 36 of 25.6 pts on .462 shooting, .350 from 3.

The point isn't that MCW sucks.  The point is that winning the rookie of the year award in one of the weakest rookie classes in at least a decade isn't that big a deal.  And that if MCW gets to be a building block in a potential dynasty at 22, what about Sully (22), KO (22) or Bradley (23)?

Avery Bradley's per 36 stats the past season, when he was one year older than MCW?

17.4 points
.438 from the field
.395 from three
4.4 rebounds
1.6 assists
1.2 steals
1.9 turnovers

Mike

[Moranis]

Philly has the reigning rookie of the year in MCW, has a guy who very easily could win the rookie of the year in Noel, has another guy that might win the rookie of the year next year (already on the team), one of the best players in Europe, and will very likely have another top 5 pick next year. 

Noel is not going to "easily" win rookie of the year when Jabari Parker, a player vastly superior, is also in the running.  Embiid has about as much chance of never playing a fuly season for Philly as he does winning rookie of the year two seasons down the road.  I believe Ricky Rubio was also "one of the best players in Europe".  And as for that reigning rookie of the year?

Evan Turner per 36 minute stats last season -
.425%
.321% from three
6.5 rebounds
3.8 assists
1 steal
2.8 turnovers
16.6 points

Michael Carter Williams per 36 minute stats last season -
.405%
.264% from three
6.5 rebounds
6.6 assists
1.9 steals
3.7 turnovers
17.4 points

And MCW is three years younger but he's 22 to Turner's 25, so it's not like he's 19 or something.

Mike

here are some other per 36 numbers for R.O.Y. wings (and Lillard since he was the 2nd most recent)

Lillard
17.8 p, 2.9 r, 6.0 a, 0.8 s, 2.8 t, 42.9/36.8

Evans
19.5 p, 5.1 r, 5.6 a, 1.5 s, 2.9 t, 45.8/25.5

Rose
16.3 p, 3.8 r, 6.1 a, 0.8 s, 2.4 t, 47.5/22.2

Durant
21.1 p, 4.5 r, 2.5 a, 1.0 s, 3.0 t, 43.0/28.8

Roy
17.1 p, 4.5 r, 4.1 a, 1.2 s, 2.1 t, 45.6/37.7

James
19.1 p, 5.0 r, 5.4 a, 1.5 s, 3.1 t, 41.7/29.0


I have no idea if MCW will end up more like Tyreke Evans or Lebron James, but to somehow act like his rookies stats are bad by coming him to Evan Turner, doesn't exactly prove your point when he compares very favorably with Lebron James, Kevin Durant, and Derrick Rose's rookie seasons.  I mean unless you don't think the last 6 MVP award winners are good basketball players anyway.

All of those guys, except Roy, came into the league at least 2 years younger than MCW.

When LeBron was MCW's age, he was putting up per 36 stats of 24.1 pts on .476 shooting, .319 from 3.

Rose at 22?  Per 36 of 24.1 pts on .445 shooting, .332 from 3, and 7.4 assists.

Durant at 22?  Per 36 of 25.6 pts on .462 shooting, .350 from 3.

The point isn't that MCW sucks.  The point is that winning the rookie of the year award in one of the weakest rookie classes in at least a decade isn't that big a deal.  And that if MCW gets to be a building block in a potential dynasty at 22, what about Sully (22), KO (22) or Bradley (23)?

Avery Bradley's per 36 stats the past season, when he was one year older than MCW?

17.4 points
.438 from the field
.395 from three
4.4 rebounds
1.6 assists
1.2 steals
1.9 turnovers

Mike

He was a rookie, he wasn't a 4th year player or even a 2nd year player.  You compare rookies to rookies.  Not 24 year olds to 24 year olds.  What does a weak rookie class have to do with his numbers when they compare favorably to the rookie numbers of the last 6 league MVP winners. 

And for the record Lillard was also 22.  He also compares well to Grant Hill, Jason Kidd, and a plethora of other rookies that won rookie of the year at a similar age. 

[BballTim]

Philly has the reigning rookie of the year in MCW, has a guy who very easily could win the rookie of the year in Noel, has another guy that might win the rookie of the year next year (already on the team), one of the best players in Europe, and will very likely have another top 5 pick next year. 

Noel is not going to "easily" win rookie of the year when Jabari Parker, a player vastly superior, is also in the running.  Embiid has about as much chance of never playing a fuly season for Philly as he does winning rookie of the year two seasons down the road.  I believe Ricky Rubio was also "one of the best players in Europe".  And as for that reigning rookie of the year?

Evan Turner per 36 minute stats last season -
.425%
.321% from three
6.5 rebounds
3.8 assists
1 steal
2.8 turnovers
16.6 points

Michael Carter Williams per 36 minute stats last season -
.405%
.264% from three
6.5 rebounds
6.6 assists
1.9 steals
3.7 turnovers
17.4 points

And MCW is three years younger but he's 22 to Turner's 25, so it's not like he's 19 or something.

Mike

here are some other per 36 numbers for R.O.Y. wings (and Lillard since he was the 2nd most recent)

Lillard
17.8 p, 2.9 r, 6.0 a, 0.8 s, 2.8 t, 42.9/36.8

Evans
19.5 p, 5.1 r, 5.6 a, 1.5 s, 2.9 t, 45.8/25.5

Rose
16.3 p, 3.8 r, 6.1 a, 0.8 s, 2.4 t, 47.5/22.2

Durant
21.1 p, 4.5 r, 2.5 a, 1.0 s, 3.0 t, 43.0/28.8

Roy
17.1 p, 4.5 r, 4.1 a, 1.2 s, 2.1 t, 45.6/37.7

James
19.1 p, 5.0 r, 5.4 a, 1.5 s, 3.1 t, 41.7/29.0


I have no idea if MCW will end up more like Tyreke Evans or Lebron James, but to somehow act like his rookies stats are bad by coming him to Evan Turner, doesn't exactly prove your point when he compares very favorably with Lebron James, Kevin Durant, and Derrick Rose's rookie seasons.  I mean unless you don't think the last 6 MVP award winners are good basketball players anyway.

All of those guys, except Roy, came into the league at least 2 years younger than MCW.

When LeBron was MCW's age, he was putting up per 36 stats of 24.1 pts on .476 shooting, .319 from 3.

Rose at 22?  Per 36 of 24.1 pts on .445 shooting, .332 from 3, and 7.4 assists.

Durant at 22?  Per 36 of 25.6 pts on .462 shooting, .350 from 3.

The point isn't that MCW sucks.  The point is that winning the rookie of the year award in one of the weakest rookie classes in at least a decade isn't that big a deal.  And that if MCW gets to be a building block in a potential dynasty at 22, what about Sully (22), KO (22) or Bradley (23)?

Avery Bradley's per 36 stats the past season, when he was one year older than MCW?

17.4 points
.438 from the field
.395 from three
4.4 rebounds
1.6 assists
1.2 steals
1.9 turnovers

Mike

He was a rookie, he wasn't a 4th year player or even a 2nd year player.  You compare rookies to rookies.  Not 24 year olds to 24 year olds.  What does a weak rookie class have to do with his numbers when they compare favorably to the rookie numbers of the last 6 league MVP winners. 

And for the record Lillard was also 22.  He also compares well to Grant Hill, Jason Kidd, and a plethora of other rookies that won rookie of the year at a similar age.

  We'll watch him for a few years and see how he compares to those guys going forward, that should decide things.

[slamtheking]

The only thing that Philly has done so far is put together an all-star team of "potential".  Hasn't paid an ounce of dividends yet unless you count one season's "sucktitude" leading to another high pick of "untapped potential".  On paper it might look good, but it hasn't translated to anything yet.

Yeah but that is a better position than Boston who has an injured older Rondo in the last year of his contract and the possibility that Marcus Smart might be very good.  You know what everyone else is and they aren't superstars.  Philly has the reigning rookie of the year in MCW, has a guy who very easily could win the rookie of the year in Noel, has another guy that might win the rookie of the year next year (already on the team), one of the best players in Europe, and will very likely have another top 5 pick next year. 

Boston doesn't have that.  It has a year where it was a bad team, but not so bad that it could land a top 5 talent (just one less win and the team has Exum - now sure Smart might end up better than Exum, but I think most people right now think Exum is a better prospect).  This year Boston looks to be a 22-28 win team again.  What is the point in that.  Either be very very bad or be good.  This mid level lottery team is just not a position to be in.

That's an awful lot of "might"s and "could"s to give Philly the edge, which is what Dons and I mean about potential being overweighted. 

Here's the case for our side as I see it:

- We have veterans who can help with young player development.  This is the single biggest downside to Philly's approach that gets ignored.  Centering your team around a bunch of rookie contract guys all trying to put up big numbers to cash in on their 2nd contract - guys who also know wins aren't what your organization wants right now - and supplementing them with a bunch of D-Leaguers just clinging to the league is a recipe for terrible habits, selfishness, and discord.  This isn't fantasy ball - environment and culture is crucial for young guys.

- We have assets we haven't used yet, unlike Philly who's completely sold off all their established talent.  There's "potential" that goes unaccounted for - we can still make meaningful trades.

- A "could" on our side - Marcus Smart could also be rookie of the year (which you aren't factoring in) or more importantly, wind up better than whoever wins it. 

- Unlike Philly many of our first round picks aren't based on our own team's performance.  We can play to win and get better and still get good picks if Brooklyn implodes.  We also have many more 1sts than Philly does right now, which gives us more to use in deals and a better chance to take risks later in the round.  Philly has no choice but to suck and then flip the magic "reverse winning %" switch a few years later.

I prefer our position both in the short-term and the long-term.  I think Philly, and people who support Philly's approach, are going to find out over the next few years what the success rate on "might"s and "could"s tends to be.

Philly does have some veterans.  They have Jason Richardson, Mbah a Moute, and our very own Keith Bogans.  And they don't have that many DLeaguers, probably as many as Boston has when all is said and done.  Not that I buy into any of that crap anyway.  The good players learn how to win whether there are veterans there are not.  Bad players, even with veterans around, do not.  I mean Durant (and Green) won 20 and 23 games his first two years, he jumped to 50 in year 3.  His team was mostly rookie year players during that entire time period (a few veterans here and there, but not many).  I mean the 08/09 team that won 23 games had 6 of the 20 players that played for them with more than 5 years experience and only 2 over 10 years (Joe Smith and Malik Rose that played in a combined 56 games).  I think Durant figured it out just fine.  He is clearly not the only example (James in Cleveland, Jordan in Chicago, etc.).  Teams like the ones that Magic, Bird, and Duncan get onto are very rare.  Most of the all time greats start out on bad teams filled with young guys.  I'm certainly not suggesting that Philly has anyone even in the league of those guys, but what I'm suggesting is, veteran influence is a bunch of hog wash.  So is this notion that you have to be on winning teams and that losing is somehow a bad thing.  Sure losing for years on end is bad, but a couple or few losing seasons to start your career is definitely not a bad thing, in fact Cleveland was hurt long term by just how good James made them his rookie year.  Seattle/OKC benefited greatly from those 20 and 23 win seasons as those seasons led to Westbrook and Harden (Ibaka was a later 1st as well during that period and obviously Green came in with Durant). 

As far as playing for contracts, all rookies do that, and almost all that work out end up right back on the team that drafted them.  The difficulty is keeping them for that 3rd contract (see James, Howard, Bosh, etc.).  I mean even Tim Duncan flirted heavily in leaving San An for Orlando at one point.

Philly's vets don't remotely compare with established veteran role players like Joe Smith, Kurt Thomas, Chucky Atkins, Nick Collison, Adrian Griffin, Malik Rose, Earl Watson, Kevin Ollie etc, that surrounded Durant and Westbrook in their first couple of years.  Those guys don't have to play or be great players to teach good habits and a mature approach to the NBA.  But maybe that's just a matter of perception.

And I notice you keep talking about all-time greats, as if Philly has any.  Their young talent doesn't compare with Durant or Westbrook (though I suppose they "could" draft guys like that, or their guys "might" become that good later!) 

We'll have to agree to disagree.  In the meantime, wake me up when Philly's super-optimum strategy results in a better team than ours anywhere outside of a crystal ball.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Philly has a better record than Boston this year.  Of course I really like Noel.  I think he could be a real player.

I think you'd be the only one who wouldn't be surprised.  Philly is devoid of talent.  MCW is in reality an ok PG.  winning ROY in a lackluster draft doesn't really mean much -- particularly when he was on a team where he had to play major minutes.  Noel has no real offense.  if healthy, should be solid on D but the name of the game is outscoring the opposition. 

C's figure to be bad but nowhere near Philly bad.  no one projects to be Philly-bad this year.  Utah, Milwaukee, Orlando and the Lakers - the remaining bottom feeders from last year - all figure to be better. 

I don't think I'll be the only one smiling at the next lottery when Philly achieves it's goal of the worst record and true-to-form the lottery winner is a team that doesn't have the worst record.

[cb8883]

The only thing that Philly has done so far is put together an all-star team of "potential".  Hasn't paid an ounce of dividends yet unless you count one season's "sucktitude" leading to another high pick of "untapped potential".  On paper it might look good, but it hasn't translated to anything yet.

Yeah but that is a better position than Boston who has an injured older Rondo in the last year of his contract and the possibility that Marcus Smart might be very good.  You know what everyone else is and they aren't superstars.  Philly has the reigning rookie of the year in MCW, has a guy who very easily could win the rookie of the year in Noel, has another guy that might win the rookie of the year next year (already on the team), one of the best players in Europe, and will very likely have another top 5 pick next year. 

Boston doesn't have that.  It has a year where it was a bad team, but not so bad that it could land a top 5 talent (just one less win and the team has Exum - now sure Smart might end up better than Exum, but I think most people right now think Exum is a better prospect).  This year Boston looks to be a 22-28 win team again.  What is the point in that.  Either be very very bad or be good.  This mid level lottery team is just not a position to be in.

That's an awful lot of "might"s and "could"s to give Philly the edge, which is what Dons and I mean about potential being overweighted. 

Here's the case for our side as I see it:

- We have veterans who can help with young player development.  This is the single biggest downside to Philly's approach that gets ignored.  Centering your team around a bunch of rookie contract guys all trying to put up big numbers to cash in on their 2nd contract - guys who also know wins aren't what your organization wants right now - and supplementing them with a bunch of D-Leaguers just clinging to the league is a recipe for terrible habits, selfishness, and discord.  This isn't fantasy ball - environment and culture is crucial for young guys.

- We have assets we haven't used yet, unlike Philly who's completely sold off all their established talent.  There's "potential" that goes unaccounted for - we can still make meaningful trades.

- A "could" on our side - Marcus Smart could also be rookie of the year (which you aren't factoring in) or more importantly, wind up better than whoever wins it. 

- Unlike Philly many of our first round picks aren't based on our own team's performance.  We can play to win and get better and still get good picks if Brooklyn implodes.  We also have many more 1sts than Philly does right now, which gives us more to use in deals and a better chance to take risks later in the round.  Philly has no choice but to suck and then flip the magic "reverse winning %" switch a few years later.

I prefer our position both in the short-term and the long-term.  I think Philly, and people who support Philly's approach, are going to find out over the next few years what the success rate on "might"s and "could"s tends to be.

Philly does have some veterans.  They have Jason Richardson, Mbah a Moute, and our very own Keith Bogans.  And they don't have that many DLeaguers, probably as many as Boston has when all is said and done.  Not that I buy into any of that crap anyway.  The good players learn how to win whether there are veterans there are not.  Bad players, even with veterans around, do not.  I mean Durant (and Green) won 20 and 23 games his first two years, he jumped to 50 in year 3.  His team was mostly rookie year players during that entire time period (a few veterans here and there, but not many).  I mean the 08/09 team that won 23 games had 6 of the 20 players that played for them with more than 5 years experience and only 2 over 10 years (Joe Smith and Malik Rose that played in a combined 56 games).  I think Durant figured it out just fine.  He is clearly not the only example (James in Cleveland, Jordan in Chicago, etc.).  Teams like the ones that Magic, Bird, and Duncan get onto are very rare.  Most of the all time greats start out on bad teams filled with young guys.  I'm certainly not suggesting that Philly has anyone even in the league of those guys, but what I'm suggesting is, veteran influence is a bunch of hog wash.  So is this notion that you have to be on winning teams and that losing is somehow a bad thing.  Sure losing for years on end is bad, but a couple or few losing seasons to start your career is definitely not a bad thing, in fact Cleveland was hurt long term by just how good James made them his rookie year.  Seattle/OKC benefited greatly from those 20 and 23 win seasons as those seasons led to Westbrook and Harden (Ibaka was a later 1st as well during that period and obviously Green came in with Durant). 

As far as playing for contracts, all rookies do that, and almost all that work out end up right back on the team that drafted them.  The difficulty is keeping them for that 3rd contract (see James, Howard, Bosh, etc.).  I mean even Tim Duncan flirted heavily in leaving San An for Orlando at one point.

Philly's vets don't remotely compare with established veteran role players like Joe Smith, Kurt Thomas, Chucky Atkins, Nick Collison, Adrian Griffin, Malik Rose, Earl Watson, Kevin Ollie etc, that surrounded Durant and Westbrook in their first couple of years.  Those guys don't have to play or be great players to teach good habits and a mature approach to the NBA.  But maybe that's just a matter of perception.

And I notice you keep talking about all-time greats, as if Philly has any.  Their young talent doesn't compare with Durant or Westbrook (though I suppose they "could" draft guys like that, or their guys "might" become that good later!) 

We'll have to agree to disagree.  In the meantime, wake me up when Philly's super-optimum strategy results in a better team than ours anywhere outside of a crystal ball.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Philly has a better record than Boston this year.  Of course I really like Noel.  I think he could be a real player.

I think you'd be the only one who wouldn't be surprised.  Philly is devoid of talent.  MCW is in reality an ok PG.  winning ROY in a lackluster draft doesn't really mean much -- particularly when he was on a team where he had to play major minutes.  Noel has no real offense.  if healthy, should be solid on D but the name of the game is outscoring the opposition. 

C's figure to be bad but nowhere near Philly bad.  no one projects to be Philly-bad this year.  Utah, Milwaukee, Orlando and the Lakers - the remaining bottom feeders from last year - all figure to be better. 

I don't think I'll be the only one smiling at the next lottery when Philly achieves it's goal of the worst record and true-to-form the lottery winner is a team that doesn't have the worst record.

If Philly is devoid of talent then what do you call the Celtics. Philly is actually one of the most talented teams in the NBA but no one on that team is ready for prime time yet. Embiid, Noel, MCW, Saric...the Celtics could only dream of having this kind of talent. No one on this Roster has even MCW's upside.

[TheTruthFot18]

If Philly is devoid of talent then what do you call the Celtics. Philly is actually one of the most talented teams in the NBA but no one on that team is ready for prime time yet. Embiid, Noel, MCW, Saric...the Celtics could only dream of having this kind of talent. No one on this Roster has even MCW's upside.

By talent I think you mean potential. Noel and Embiid have not played a single game yet and already show a Gronk-like injury record. MCW had a great rookie season on a horrific team so of course he shined. We will see how it turns out this year. They have just as much if not more potential than this Celtics squad but the talent label will take time.

[Donoghus]

If Philly is devoid of talent then what do you call the Celtics. Philly is actually one of the most talented teams in the NBA but no one on that team is ready for prime time yet. Embiid, Noel, MCW, Saric...the Celtics could only dream of having this kind of talent. No one on this Roster has even MCW's upside.

By talent I think you mean potential. Noel and Embiid have not played a single game yet and already show a Gronk-like injury record. MCW had a great rookie season on a horrific team so of course he shined. We will see how it turns out this year. They have just as much if not more potential than this Celtics squad but the talent label will take time.

I seem to have to hammer it home on here every few months; the allure of potential is a dangerous thing.  People tend to get wrapped up in it & neglect to look at the actuality of things. 

[CelticsFanFromNYC]

If Philly is devoid of talent then what do you call the Celtics. Philly is actually one of the most talented teams in the NBA but no one on that team is ready for prime time yet. Embiid, Noel, MCW, Saric...the Celtics could only dream of having this kind of talent. No one on this Roster has even MCW's upside.

By talent I think you mean potential. Noel and Embiid have not played a single game yet and already show a Gronk-like injury record. MCW had a great rookie season on a horrific team so of course he shined. We will see how it turns out this year. They have just as much if not more potential than this Celtics squad but the talent label will take time.

I seem to have to hammer it home on here every few months; the allure of potential is a dangerous thing.  People tend to get wrapped up in it & neglect to look at the actuality of things.

I definitely agree with the "MCW had a great season on a horrific team" comment. His per 36  looked very similar to Evan Turners per 36 and ET gets shut down all through this Blog.  Someone in a previous thread said "Philly is the All-Star team of potential". I agree that the potential is extremely dangerous but at the same time the possibility of them not meeting the hype is honestly not that far fetched.

And if potential is a dangerous thing, Sully has loads of it & KO is on track for a Dirk  statistical career. I AM NOT DISAGREEING BY ANY MEANS BTW

[Donoghus]

If Philly is devoid of talent then what do you call the Celtics. Philly is actually one of the most talented teams in the NBA but no one on that team is ready for prime time yet. Embiid, Noel, MCW, Saric...the Celtics could only dream of having this kind of talent. No one on this Roster has even MCW's upside.

By talent I think you mean potential. Noel and Embiid have not played a single game yet and already show a Gronk-like injury record. MCW had a great rookie season on a horrific team so of course he shined. We will see how it turns out this year. They have just as much if not more potential than this Celtics squad but the talent label will take time.

I seem to have to hammer it home on here every few months; the allure of potential is a dangerous thing.  People tend to get wrapped up in it & neglect to look at the actuality of things.

I definitely agree with the "MCW had a great season on a horrific team" comment. His per 36  looked very similar to Evan Turners per 36 and ET gets shut down all through this Blog.  Someone in a previous thread said "Philly is the All-Star team of potential". I agree that the potential is extremely dangerous but at the same time the possibility of them not meeting the hype is honestly not that far fetched.

And if potential is a dangerous thing, Sully has loads of it & KO is on track for a Dirk  statistical career. I AM NOT DISAGREEING BY ANY MEANS BTW

Ha...I was actually also the one that made the all star comment.

[CelticsFanFromNYC]

If Philly is devoid of talent then what do you call the Celtics. Philly is actually one of the most talented teams in the NBA but no one on that team is ready for prime time yet. Embiid, Noel, MCW, Saric...the Celtics could only dream of having this kind of talent. No one on this Roster has even MCW's upside.

By talent I think you mean potential. Noel and Embiid have not played a single game yet and already show a Gronk-like injury record. MCW had a great rookie season on a horrific team so of course he shined. We will see how it turns out this year. They have just as much if not more potential than this Celtics squad but the talent label will take time.

I seem to have to hammer it home on here every few months; the allure of potential is a dangerous thing.  People tend to get wrapped up in it & neglect to look at the actuality of things.

I definitely agree with the "MCW had a great season on a horrific team" comment. His per 36  looked very similar to Evan Turners per 36 and ET gets shut down all through this Blog.  Someone in a previous thread said "Philly is the All-Star team of potential". I agree that the potential is extremely dangerous but at the same time the possibility of them not meeting the hype is honestly not that far fetched.

And if potential is a dangerous thing, Sully has loads of it & KO is on track for a Dirk  statistical career. I AM NOT DISAGREEING BY ANY MEANS BTW

Ha...I was actually also the one that made the all star comment.

Ha! That Ironic! BTW my last comment was replying to the post which said "no one on our team has as much upside as MCW".. I honestly beg to differ. I bet Smarts number would look very similar like his college #'s if he was on Philly

[slamtheking]

If Philly is devoid of talent then what do you call the Celtics. Philly is actually one of the most talented teams in the NBA but no one on that team is ready for prime time yet. Embiid, Noel, MCW, Saric...the Celtics could only dream of having this kind of talent. No one on this Roster has even MCW's upside.

By talent I think you mean potential. Noel and Embiid have not played a single game yet and already show a Gronk-like injury record. MCW had a great rookie season on a horrific team so of course he shined. We will see how it turns out this year. They have just as much if not more potential than this Celtics squad but the talent label will take time.

I seem to have to hammer it home on here every few months; the allure of potential is a dangerous thing.  People tend to get wrapped up in it & neglect to look at the actuality of things.

I definitely agree with the "MCW had a great season on a horrific team" comment. His per 36  looked very similar to Evan Turners per 36 and ET gets shut down all through this Blog.  Someone in a previous thread said "Philly is the All-Star team of potential". I agree that the potential is extremely dangerous but at the same time the possibility of them not meeting the hype is honestly not that far fetched.

And if potential is a dangerous thing, Sully has loads of it & KO is on track for a Dirk  statistical career. I AM NOT DISAGREEING BY ANY MEANS BTW

Ha...I was actually also the one that made the all star comment.

Ha! That Ironic! BTW my last comment was replying to the post which said "no one on our team has as much upside as MCW".. I honestly beg to differ. I bet Smarts number would look very similar like his college #'s if he was on Philly

I almost choked on a mouthful of coffee when I read that MCW post above.  then I saw the source and realized it's the same garbage from the same source in yet another thread.

totally agree on Smart - if he was in MCW's situation last year, he'd put up better numbers.  If Philly offered MCW to us for any one of our young players straight up, I don't think there's 1 I'd trade for him.  I think when all is said and done, Smart, Sully, KO, Zeller, AB and Young will all have better careers than MCW. 

Noel, Embiid and Saric have a lot of potential swirling about their names but until they get on the court and produce, it's only that -- potential.