First... most depressing Celtics article ever probably had to do with Len Bias.
Second... What's wrong with this article? This was a bottom 5 team last year without star talent. We haven't made significant additions. Smart might end up being a star-caliber player, but he currently plays the same position as our only fringe all-star. The young guys might show improvement, but none of them (other than Smart) has star potential and even if they were to take significant leaps, it's unlikely to vault us into relevance. We're a bad team.
The draft picks might pan out. Some stuff could work out. We might be in good position to steal a good player via trade. But right now, this team stinks. We're probably still a bottom 5 team.
The fact that he mentioned Sullinger as an undersized center (he plays power forward) and Bradley as an reluctant shooter just shows poorly researched this article is. It's okay to be negative, but when your article is negative for the sake of being negative, it's just as bad as an overly optimistic one. Smart and Sullinger have All star potential by the way.
Sullinger has played center, though. He might be a good starter some day, but he's coming off a season averaging 13 points and 8 rebounds on 43% shooting. I really don't see all-star potential. Solid role player on a good team. Should get some stats on this bad team.
Would you describe Bradley as an aggressive offensive player up until this point in his career? I wouldn't. Most of his energy has been reserved for overly-aggressive defense. He averaged 13 shot attempts last year, though... starting to incorporate offense more into his game. BUt why are we even talking about bradley... I'm not even sure that guy is a long-term starter in this league.
The article is pretty on point. This team is pretty depressing right now. WE're in the dumps. Coming off a 25 win season heading for another one. There's some hope for the future, but there's no clear path to turning this around. Smart seems like the best bet to reach star level, but currently he's Rondo's backup. We have picks to use over the next 3 years... maybe we'll finally luck out in the lotto at some point. But right now, we're a very bad basketball team.
Great, let's extrapolate Sullinger's potential based on his second year after back surgery and an hand injuries that lingered throughout the season after November on a revamped roster with a rookie coach while playing out of position. Seems like the logical way to go about it.
As for Bradley, I suggest you look at his body of work since he got inserted in the starting line-up in late 2012. You're too influenced by his rookie campaign and his play coming off the bench early in his sophomore season. He's actually been very active offensively for the past 2 seasons+.
Sully and Bradley both looked impressive in the preseason, but that's preseason. We'll see how they do. I think Sully has more potential, but neither is a franchise cornerstone. They'll be front-and-center this year as we putter away to 26 wins, though. On a team mostly devoid of talent, those are two of the rare Celtics that actually have a long-term future in the NBA... whether as starters or role players, but probably not stars.
I really don't like the way this term is used mostly. Most players aren't considered franchise cornerstones until they prove to be. I'm assuming you are saying Bradley and Sullinger have no potential to grow into "franchise cornerstones", which I completely disagree with. It's a matter of opinion, I suppose, but even if it's just pre-season, Sully's shot has shown great improvement after testing the 3 last year. It was a 8 game sample size, but he still shot them at 50% at a good volume. Obviously he won't shoot 50% in the regular season, but I'd be surprised if he was at 27%. If Sully develops a consistent 3PT game, there is no reason he can't be a "franchise cornerstone". PFs who can shoot 3s and rebound like him are awesome. Every team wants them, and every team wants them to be their starting PF. You are underrating the quality he can potentially bring to this team as he further develops, and this is coming from someone who isn't even that big of a fan of Sully in the first place.
Bradley can be a starting guard on a contender. Why not? He defends with the best of them and can hit the 3 ball consistently. Look, the league is moving away from this "big 3" movement already. Sure Lebron formed another one in Cleveland, but it's clear a lot of teams are finding success by building a team with depth and sound structure. No one had any idea that Portland, Phoenix, Toronto, Charlotte, and Washington would be anywhere close to being as good as they were last season. For Phoenix, Toronto, and Charlotte, a huge reason for the success was their system. It fit their players, and they found success. Indiana, Memphis, and San Antonio are examples of teams doing "more with less" also. Yes, I include SAS there even though they have Tim Duncan and Tony Parker. Tim Duncan isn't a superstar out there anymore. Tony Parker was average in the playoffs in their most recent playoff run. They found success in building with depth and focusing on each and every player's strength. Even excluding SAS for a second, which I'm willing to do, every one of the teams I listed above were said to be devoid of talent before they actually started winning. In general people are overly negative about losing teams, and a lot of people lack foresight, which makes sense in a way. You can't necessarily assume development. The thing is, we have already gotten a glimpse of the potential for this regular in the pre-season. It may
just be pre-season, but more players are buying into the system this year, and we are far more talented than last year. We have more capable shooters and ball-handlers, which is key for a team lacking in strong options.
Maybe things will change in a couple years, but in the present, it's clear Ainge and Stevens are moving towards more of a Indiana, Memphis, SAS, Phoenix, Charlotte, etc model than the star model of OKC, LAC, Cleveland, Miami of yesterday, and even Boston of yesterday.
But like I said, most of this is opinion so if you disagree that's okay. I'm fine with it. The article was not doing this, though. They were throwing everything out there as fact, and when they actually presented objective information, for the most part, it was misguided and wrong.