Could the Celtics now be a decent team?

[Nerf DPOY]

Who the hell wants to be decent?  Either be really bad or really good.  Decent sucks.

This is a pretty decent point that probably most people should be able to understand.

Um, I don't understand.

I'd much rather be decent than really bad.

I guess that means I'm dumb?  Or at least ignorant?

It is possibly you are either ignorant of, or forgetting, or surprisingly or boldly optimistic in regards to nba purgatory when you are continuously picking in the 8-12 range.

It's most likely you who are ignorant if you mistakenly believe that being a mediocre NBA basketball team leads to a state of that mediocrity necessarily lasting in perpetuity. 

That's obviously not true.  It's reached near comedic levels that folks just keep repeating this as some kind of truism despite there being absolutely no evidence to support the theory.

There are a lot of teams that this happens to. You just never think of them because they are just always the 6th, 7th, 8th seed, or just outside or just doing nothing. The Jazz, the Hawks, the Bucks, the T Wolves, the Nuggs, the Hornets, the Knicks, the Trailblazers, the Suns.  All respectable teams and that's about it. By the time they get something going their star player is tired of the losing and wants to leave. Happened to the T Wolves twice now.  Or they fire a coach or something. It will be interesting to see what happens to the Pelicans soon and the Trailblazers.  The Celtics were lucky to break out of it. Basically got lucky on timing. The Bulls got lucky to get D Rose.

The Wolves and Hornets are perfect examples of organizations that fly in the face of what you're saying. It's strange that you chose them.

[Celtics18]

Who the hell wants to be decent?  Either be really bad or really good.  Decent sucks.

This is a pretty decent point that probably most people should be able to understand.

Um, I don't understand.

I'd much rather be decent than really bad.

I guess that means I'm dumb?  Or at least ignorant?

It is possibly you are either ignorant of, or forgetting, or surprisingly or boldly optimistic in regards to nba purgatory when you are continuously picking in the 8-12 range.

It's most likely you who are ignorant if you mistakenly believe that being a mediocre NBA basketball team leads to a state of that mediocrity necessarily lasting in perpetuity. 

That's obviously not true.  It's reached near comedic levels that folks just keep repeating this as some kind of truism despite there being absolutely no evidence to support the theory.

There are a lot of teams that this happens to. You just never think of them because they are just always the 6th, 7th, 8th seed, or just outside or just doing nothing. The Jazz, the Hawks, the Bucks, the T Wolves, the Nuggs, the Hornets, the Knicks, the Trailblazers, the Suns.  All respectable teams and that's about it. By the time they get something going their star player is tired of the losing and wants to leave. Happened to the T Wolves twice now.  Or they fire a coach or something. It will be interesting to see what happens to the Pelicans soon and the Trailblazers.  The Celtics were lucky to break out of it. Basically got lucky on timing. The Bulls got lucky to get D Rose.

The Wolves and Hornets are perfect examples of organizations that fly in the face of what you're saying. It's strange that you chose them.

The Bucks, Knicks, Hawks, and Nuggets also are teams that spent many years near the bottom, amassing high draft picks as part of their paths towards mediocrity. 

These are all teams that do more to negate the claim that "mediocrity is the worst place to be and that if you are in it, it lasts forever" than they do to support it. 

[Nerf DPOY]

Who the hell wants to be decent?  Either be really bad or really good.  Decent sucks.

This is a pretty decent point that probably most people should be able to understand.

Um, I don't understand.

I'd much rather be decent than really bad.

I guess that means I'm dumb?  Or at least ignorant?

It is possibly you are either ignorant of, or forgetting, or surprisingly or boldly optimistic in regards to nba purgatory when you are continuously picking in the 8-12 range.

It's most likely you who are ignorant if you mistakenly believe that being a mediocre NBA basketball team leads to a state of that mediocrity necessarily lasting in perpetuity. 

That's obviously not true.  It's reached near comedic levels that folks just keep repeating this as some kind of truism despite there being absolutely no evidence to support the theory.

There are a lot of teams that this happens to. You just never think of them because they are just always the 6th, 7th, 8th seed, or just outside or just doing nothing. The Jazz, the Hawks, the Bucks, the T Wolves, the Nuggs, the Hornets, the Knicks, the Trailblazers, the Suns.  All respectable teams and that's about it. By the time they get something going their star player is tired of the losing and wants to leave. Happened to the T Wolves twice now.  Or they fire a coach or something. It will be interesting to see what happens to the Pelicans soon and the Trailblazers.  The Celtics were lucky to break out of it. Basically got lucky on timing. The Bulls got lucky to get D Rose.

The Wolves and Hornets are perfect examples of organizations that fly in the face of what you're saying. It's strange that you chose them.

The Bucks, Knicks, Hawks, and Nuggets also are teams that spent many years near the bottom, amassing high draft picks as part of their paths towards mediocrity. 

These are all teams that do more to negate the claim that "mediocrity is the worst place to be and that if you are in it, it lasts forever" than they do to support it.

Rockets and Grizzlies are on NBA TV right now. I'd call them both contenders. Conley jr is the only one in either starting 5 drafted or traded for via a bottom 5 finishing season. The rest are FA's and trades involving various assets.

[Celtics18]

Who the hell wants to be decent?  Either be really bad or really good.  Decent sucks.

This is a pretty decent point that probably most people should be able to understand.

Um, I don't understand.

I'd much rather be decent than really bad.

I guess that means I'm dumb?  Or at least ignorant?

It is possibly you are either ignorant of, or forgetting, or surprisingly or boldly optimistic in regards to nba purgatory when you are continuously picking in the 8-12 range.

It's most likely you who are ignorant if you mistakenly believe that being a mediocre NBA basketball team leads to a state of that mediocrity necessarily lasting in perpetuity. 

That's obviously not true.  It's reached near comedic levels that folks just keep repeating this as some kind of truism despite there being absolutely no evidence to support the theory.

There are a lot of teams that this happens to. You just never think of them because they are just always the 6th, 7th, 8th seed, or just outside or just doing nothing. The Jazz, the Hawks, the Bucks, the T Wolves, the Nuggs, the Hornets, the Knicks, the Trailblazers, the Suns.  All respectable teams and that's about it. By the time they get something going their star player is tired of the losing and wants to leave. Happened to the T Wolves twice now.  Or they fire a coach or something. It will be interesting to see what happens to the Pelicans soon and the Trailblazers.  The Celtics were lucky to break out of it. Basically got lucky on timing. The Bulls got lucky to get D Rose.

The Wolves and Hornets are perfect examples of organizations that fly in the face of what you're saying. It's strange that you chose them.

The Bucks, Knicks, Hawks, and Nuggets also are teams that spent many years near the bottom, amassing high draft picks as part of their paths towards mediocrity. 

These are all teams that do more to negate the claim that "mediocrity is the worst place to be and that if you are in it, it lasts forever" than they do to support it.

Rockets and Grizzlies are on NBA TV right now. I'd call them both contenders. Conley jr is the only one in either starting 5 drafted or traded for via a bottom 5 finishing season. The rest are FA's and trades involving various assets.

More evidence that mediocrity is not the worst place to be as an NBA franchise. 

[Moranis]

Starting in the 97-98 season the Rockets have been out of the first round of the playoffs exactly 1 time, have made the playoffs 9 times and missed the playoffs 8 times.  They only had one year finishing with a bottom 5 record and ended up with the 1st pick and Ming, who almost immediately made them good enough to make the playoffs, but not good enough to win (and thus they couldn't land any other top tier talent through the draft - the same problem the Cavs had with Lebron the first go around, though Lebron was way better than Ming and made the Cavs a real contender).  That seems to me to be the classic case of a treadmill of mediocrity.  Now granted their current team is looking pretty solid but they haven't done much of anything yet.

Memphis is a bit different.  They have shown to be a real contender, and sure Conley is their only lottery pick, but they essentially acquired Gasol (directly) and Randolph (using the cap space) when they traded their last cornerstone draft pick (Pau).  They also bottomed out and three straight years of top five picks, they just bombed out with Mayo and Thabeet (imagine if they actually would have kept Love instead of making that nonsensical draft day trade).

[Moranis]

Who the hell wants to be decent?  Either be really bad or really good.  Decent sucks.

This is a pretty decent point that probably most people should be able to understand.

Um, I don't understand.

I'd much rather be decent than really bad.

I guess that means I'm dumb?  Or at least ignorant?

It is possibly you are either ignorant of, or forgetting, or surprisingly or boldly optimistic in regards to nba purgatory when you are continuously picking in the 8-12 range.

It's most likely you who are ignorant if you mistakenly believe that being a mediocre NBA basketball team leads to a state of that mediocrity necessarily lasting in perpetuity. 

That's obviously not true.  It's reached near comedic levels that folks just keep repeating this as some kind of truism despite there being absolutely no evidence to support the theory.

There are a lot of teams that this happens to. You just never think of them because they are just always the 6th, 7th, 8th seed, or just outside or just doing nothing. The Jazz, the Hawks, the Bucks, the T Wolves, the Nuggs, the Hornets, the Knicks, the Trailblazers, the Suns.  All respectable teams and that's about it. By the time they get something going their star player is tired of the losing and wants to leave. Happened to the T Wolves twice now.  Or they fire a coach or something. It will be interesting to see what happens to the Pelicans soon and the Trailblazers.  The Celtics were lucky to break out of it. Basically got lucky on timing. The Bulls got lucky to get D Rose.

The Wolves and Hornets are perfect examples of organizations that fly in the face of what you're saying. It's strange that you chose them.

The Bucks, Knicks, Hawks, and Nuggets also are teams that spent many years near the bottom, amassing high draft picks as part of their paths towards mediocrity. 

These are all teams that do more to negate the claim that "mediocrity is the worst place to be and that if you are in it, it lasts forever" than they do to support it.

Since drafting Marbury in 1996, the Bucks have had exactly 1 top 5 pick (Bogut) and that was a year they didn't even finish in the bottom five of the league.  I'm not sure they are the team to point to when talking about amassing high draft picks.  Speaking of which, the Nuggets since drafting LaFrentz in 1998 have had exactly two top 5 draft picks, in back to back years, in Tskitishvili and Anthony.  Again, not seeing a mass of high draft picks.  Even more striking, the Knicks haven't had a top 5 draft pick since Kenny Walker in 1986.  Still not seeing a mass of high draft picks.  Surely you must have gotten the Hawks right.  Since taking Koncak with the 5th pick in 1985, the Hawks have had 4 top 5 picks.  Pau Gasol in 2001, whom they traded at the draft; and then in three consecutive years Marvin Williams, Sheldon Williams, and Al Horford.  That was in the middle of their 8 year playoff drought and was the only time in basically the entire history of the franchise that they had sustained bad play.   At least the Hawks have had a decent enough amount of high draft picks that including them makes some bit of sense.

[Nerf DPOY]

Starting in the 97-98 season the Rockets have been out of the first round of the playoffs exactly 1 time, have made the playoffs 9 times and missed the playoffs 8 times.  They only had one year finishing with a bottom 5 record and ended up with the 1st pick and Ming, who almost immediately made them good enough to make the playoffs, but not good enough to win (and thus they couldn't land any other top tier talent through the draft - the same problem the Cavs had with Lebron the first go around, though Lebron was way better than Ming and made the Cavs a real contender).  That seems to me to be the classic case of a treadmill of mediocrity.  Now granted their current team is looking pretty solid but they haven't done much of anything yet.

Memphis is a bit different.  They have shown to be a real contender, and sure Conley is their only lottery pick, but they essentially acquired Gasol (directly) and Randolph (using the cap space) when they traded their last cornerstone draft pick (Pau).  They also bottomed out and three straight years of top five picks, they just bombed out with Mayo and Thabeet (imagine if they actually would have kept Love instead of making that nonsensical draft day trade).

The Rockets traded for T-Mac but he and Yao were hurt so much the timing was never right. They were derailed by injuries, and it doesn't really strike me as a compelling argument for tanking. Look at the teams they couldn't get past during the aughts. The Lakers and Mavs were powerhouses that weren't put together through tanking. I suppose the Spurs got Duncan #1, but that is really oversimplifying why the Spurs are the Spurs.

I'm not saying bottoming out is a terrible approach to getting better long term, but it's certainly not fail safe or the only way to build a contender.

[Celtics18]

Who the hell wants to be decent?  Either be really bad or really good.  Decent sucks.

This is a pretty decent point that probably most people should be able to understand.

Um, I don't understand.

I'd much rather be decent than really bad.

I guess that means I'm dumb?  Or at least ignorant?

It is possibly you are either ignorant of, or forgetting, or surprisingly or boldly optimistic in regards to nba purgatory when you are continuously picking in the 8-12 range.

It's most likely you who are ignorant if you mistakenly believe that being a mediocre NBA basketball team leads to a state of that mediocrity necessarily lasting in perpetuity. 

That's obviously not true.  It's reached near comedic levels that folks just keep repeating this as some kind of truism despite there being absolutely no evidence to support the theory.

There are a lot of teams that this happens to. You just never think of them because they are just always the 6th, 7th, 8th seed, or just outside or just doing nothing. The Jazz, the Hawks, the Bucks, the T Wolves, the Nuggs, the Hornets, the Knicks, the Trailblazers, the Suns.  All respectable teams and that's about it. By the time they get something going their star player is tired of the losing and wants to leave. Happened to the T Wolves twice now.  Or they fire a coach or something. It will be interesting to see what happens to the Pelicans soon and the Trailblazers.  The Celtics were lucky to break out of it. Basically got lucky on timing. The Bulls got lucky to get D Rose.

The Wolves and Hornets are perfect examples of organizations that fly in the face of what you're saying. It's strange that you chose them.

The Bucks, Knicks, Hawks, and Nuggets also are teams that spent many years near the bottom, amassing high draft picks as part of their paths towards mediocrity. 

These are all teams that do more to negate the claim that "mediocrity is the worst place to be and that if you are in it, it lasts forever" than they do to support it.

Since drafting Marbury in 1996, the Bucks have had exactly 1 top 5 pick (Bogut) and that was a year they didn't even finish in the bottom five of the league.  I'm not sure they are the team to point to when talking about amassing high draft picks.  Speaking of which, the Nuggets since drafting LaFrentz in 1998 have had exactly two top 5 draft picks, in back to back years, in Tskitishvili and Anthony.  Again, not seeing a mass of high draft picks.  Even more striking, the Knicks haven't had a top 5 draft pick since Kenny Walker in 1986.  Still not seeing a mass of high draft picks.  Surely you must have gotten the Hawks right.  Since taking Koncak with the 5th pick in 1985, the Hawks have had 4 top 5 picks.  Pau Gasol in 2001, whom they traded at the draft; and then in three consecutive years Marvin Williams, Sheldon Williams, and Al Horford.  That was in the middle of their 8 year playoff drought and was the only time in basically the entire history of the franchise that they had sustained bad play.   At least the Hawks have had a decent enough amount of high draft picks that including them makes some bit of sense.

To put it another way in regards to the Nuggets; in the seven drafts between 1997 and 2003, they had four top five draft picks.

From '94 to '08, the Bucks had seven top ten picks.  Three of those were top five.  Four of them were top six. 

The Knicks haven't managed to get in the top five, but they did have five top ten picks from '02 to '09.

[greece66]

I think this team will settle down after the trade deadline and play decent basketball.  Right now they have a team that can run 9 or 10 deep and really push the pace, and steal some games from tired veteran teams.  I like Nelson and Smart sharing the point, letting Smart learn from a veteran while getting quality minutes.  Bringing Turner, Crowder, Wright and Olynk off the bench is a solid second team.  I like how Zeller is developing.  I think Danny will make one more move to alleviate the PF logjam.  Who leaves depends on what other teams want, but I don't think we finish the year with Bass, Sullinger and Wright all on the team.  Wright goes only if we get a 1st, Sullinger goes if someone in the playoff hunt needs a rebounder.  As we have seen with Josh Smith released and Verajo going down with an injury, there could be some movement before the trade deadline. 

I think we see some decent basketball after the dust settles and finish 7th in the terrible east.  I would rather see this team make the playoffs and get a taste of blood in their mouths, even if they get swept.  We don't have to tank to be good.  We have the picks and cap room to make a major move offseason. Go Celtics!

TP and thank you.
I used to think a lottery pick was the most likely (and desirable) outcome for this season but two things have made me reconsider
i/ Some players turned out to be better than expected (esp. Zeller and ET). In addition, Kelly has improved significantly his offensive game, and although people are not high on Sully, he has improved his 3pt% a lot (remember how we laughed when Stevens was saying last year Sully should take more 3s?)
ii/The East is terrible. Under normal circumstances we should now be below 10th place, instead of this we are at 9th. Pistons, Philly and NYK are at historical lows. Cavs are still trying to figure out how their three stars connect, and even the rest of the top 4 seed is nowhere near where the top 4 in the West is.
I still think the main decision maker is Ainge, and his moves in the coming months will show whether we go for passive tanking or actually make an effort to enter playoffs. If, for instance, JG gets traded as LarBrd33 believes, then it's probably goodbye playoffs because it will take the team some time to get make up for his loss in the offense. Similarly, if playoffs are the target Bass rather than Wright or Sully is IMO the guy to trade. Also, (again if playoffs are the priority) it makes sense to keep Nelson. Smart is getting 20+ mins a game, and a veteran PG as a solid backup makes sense.
So, it is Ainge who holds this team's short term future in his hands.

[mgent]

Who the hell wants to be decent?  Either be really bad or really good.  Decent sucks.

This is a pretty decent point that probably most people should be able to understand.

Um, I don't understand.

I'd much rather be decent than really bad.

I guess that means I'm dumb?  Or at least ignorant?

It is possibly you are either ignorant of, or forgetting, or surprisingly or boldly optimistic in regards to nba purgatory when you are continuously picking in the 8-12 range.

It's most likely you who are ignorant if you mistakenly believe that being a mediocre NBA basketball team leads to a state of that mediocrity necessarily lasting in perpetuity. 

That's obviously not true.  It's reached near comedic levels that folks just keep repeating this as some kind of truism despite there being absolutely no evidence to support the theory.

And despite guys like Jordan, who happened to create what is probably the best basketball team in history after being consecutively bounced out of the first round year after year after year.

Sometimes teams get better and sometimes teams get worse.  Saying it's directly related to where your team is drafting is extremely short-sighted.

In the mean time, the Celtics are quickly approaching a positive point differential (.1 behind MIL for 6th in the East).

[Celtics4ever]

Lots of these teams missed the boat in terms of drafting great with these top five picks.

[SHAQATTACK]

Trading Rondo was something that might have had to be done by both camps .  I can live with that.

The players Danny traded for are junk .

We got the huge shaft

[tstorey_97]

These Celtics play hard. I have watched them since the 60's and if that is all I'm going to get? I'll take it. Whichever way you want to look at the glass of water you've been given is up to you.

Stevens has been given a 180 degree rotation of nothing and has kept the team going for two years. He's had what? 45 guys listed as a Celtics player in the last two years? IMO he gets a medal. This opinion does not in any way suggest this team is good. It isn't. It was designed to get the president of basketball operations a draft pick. Live with it.

In further "half full" territory, a lot of these guys, while they are playing their butts off, actually care about winning even though they aren't. This tells me something about a man who can play a hand where the best card is a four of clubs.

Last season? No center and no point guard.
This season, Ainge twisted himself into a pretzel and got Stevens a legit B+ back up center. Issue has been Zeller is playing "too well."

If you actually pause and watch what Stevens has done? It may not win games, but, the fact that these guys win much at all is a miracle. Is Green a NBA starter? Sort of, I guess. What about the rest? How many starters does he have?

As the team isn't any good, I watch Stevens and the bucket of sh*& he has been strapped into.
"Brad? Uh...look...Jordan Crawford is playing just a little too well for us...I'm going to trade him for a guy who really can't play...you understand? Right?"

One season later..." Brad? I know Rondo is your only NBA level starter so, he's going to Dallas...you understand? Yea, but don't worry I got three guys who, along with the other 12 players you have? Would have a hard time getting a starting job on a decent team."

I am not defending Stevens. His teams thus far, have been one click north of the 76'ers, but, what I am saying?

Watch a really smart guy try freaking everything trying to win a game...anything. He's got Gerald Wallace (his game line? :02 seconds) who has played eleven minutes all season throwing a 160 foot bomb to Sullinger underneath with no seconds left and he hits him like Tom Brady to Gronk. Plumlee wet himself. "Duh...that was a heck of a play..."

He's got Turner, Smart, Olynyk and Bass playing the fourth against the Wiz. They were down by a thousand points, these scrubs bring them back and Stevens leaves them in for the next hour and a half while the starters watch.

The guy has leather shoes and a tie, but, he is in that game trying to win any possible way he can and? If you start dogging it? He'll pull your pretty a$$ out, put it on the bench and leave it there for the rest of the week....and it works. Ask Olynyk, Sullinger and the rest

Ok, their going to lose a bunch of games, watch Stevens because, in a work/job sense? This man has it worse than you.

[LarBrd33]

I think the trade made us a little bit better.  It's going to take a some time for everyone to get up to speed and for Stevens to settle on rotations, but I think the players we have fit Brad's system better than they did pre-trade.  OUr defense should be improved.  Our spacing should be improved.  We should have an easier time sharing the ball. 

Moving Jeff Green will probably hurt us a bit short-term, though.  Depends who we have pegged to fill his role.  He's pretty overrated as well.  Above-average scorer who does nothing else positive.

Playoffs are a possibility, but probably not.

This is his second year as our coach and we're still waiting for him to establish any semblance of a rotation, lol? Good grief.

just want to point out that if you watched the most recent game... Stevens is actually already settling on rotations.  We didn't see Pressey at all and Bass didn't make an appearance until the 4th quarter.   Once he gets to know these players more, I suspect we'll see him tighten up the rotation even more.

That's not to say that Bass is a bad player.  He isn't.  He's a solid role player.  But you can't play everyone.  Having set rotations with clear roles will improve the level of play significantly.  Much better than "everyone gets to play willy nilly"

But it's also worth remembering that Stevens has some stat guru (Drew Cannon?) that was seen as a key part of their success at Butler.  He'd do some advanced analysis about the best and most effective rotations for each opponent.  Problem is, it's useless without data.  The more data you feed in, the more accurate your results will be.   That might partially explain why Stevens mix and matches rotations on a whim... He's gotta try experimental stuff in order to have comparative analysis.

My wild guess is that when they looked at lineups featuring Rondo vs lineups that didn't feature Rondo, they weren't seeing enough there to warrant giving him a max deal.