Why Celtics GM's should be held to a different standard than other GM's

[Ilikesports17]

I was recently criticized for expressing  my  unappreciation for Danny Ainge as our GM. Others argued that I should be more appreciative and that other fan bases such as Sacramento and Brooklyn wouldn't complain about having Danny Ainge as their GM.
We should understand that we aren't Sacramento or Brooklyn; we are the Celtics and are the most accomplished team in the NBA. We have a tradition of excellence and that tradition should continue year after year. Let's look at the numbers

Danny Ainge became GM in 2006

Before he became GM the Celtics won 16 championships out of 60 and been to 18 NBA finals out of 60. That means the Celtics won 27 percent of the 60  NBA championships and been to 30 percent of the 60 NBA championship.

Since Danny Ainge took the reins as GM he has won 1 championship out of 14 and have been to 2 championships out of 14. That means the celtics won 7 percent of the 14 championships and have been to 14 percent of the 14 NBA finals. Keep in mind i didn't factor in this years finals.

Now the numbers state that Danny Ainge accomplishments pale in comparison to our teams accomplishments prior to his arrival.

It doen't make sense for a team with our history to have low standards or expectations.

For example a Mayor that develops a road in an undeveloped town in Africa would be an accomplishment that would give him much praise. But if Marty Walsh's only accomplishment was building a road in Boston he would be heavily criticized.

 We have to put things in perspective. The standard on evaluating a GM is different for each team. Danny Ainge evaluation should be based on the performance of past GM's within the Celtics organization not based on the performance  GM's from across the league.

I agree that he has room for improvement and I'm optimistic about what we can do this off season and beyond.

OK so your Africa thing is a miserable miserable analogy. If you build a road in Africa it is impressive because you probably have 0 money to start with and 0 infrastructure. If you build a road in boston it isnt impressive because you have a ton of money and infrastructure. In the NBA everyone has the same cap & no one lacks the financial capability or structure to bring in players.

Regardless, the C's won or went to like 12 of the first 13 championships or something. Half the teams they played back then dont exist anymore and the salary cap didnt exist and Red was the greatest GM/coach of all time.

Yes we have a storied history and I dont think we should celebrate being mediocre, but please its not like because he is a celtics GM things are easier for him. In NYC or LA or Miami you could hold GMs to another standard cus players beg to come there, but please, Ainge has done quite well. The Big Three era was a huge success and I believe he is building it the right direction.

If you want someone to put you in the NBA finals every other year your going to be dissapointed

[Celtics4ever]

I was recently criticized for expressing  my  unappreciation for Danny Ainge as our GM. Others argued that I should be more appreciative and that other fan bases such as Sacramento and Brooklyn wouldn't complain about having Danny Ainge as their GM.

So you rephrase the question and come back more?  unbelievable!

Before he became GM the Celtics won 16 championships out of 60 and been to 18 NBA finals out of 60. That means the Celtics won 27 percent of the 60  NBA championships and been to 30 percent of the 60 NBA championship.

Different league, no free agency back then, so this is silly to discuss.

Few seem to agree with you because I would wager, you'll never realize how spoiled you are to be a Bostonian.   Other cities have long droughts or never win a championship  since the century turned Boston has been the city of champions.

I think Red was our best GM ever, DA is next and he has more guts than Red ever did and make the hard call to break up the second big three here.  I think we are 3 years ahead on the rebuild because he

comparison is to some mythical and clairvoyant GM who has the ability of drafting players today while knowing exactly how they will turn out 3 years into the future.

 

If your referring to me, I never said that.   Besides most knew that KO and Sully were slow and Ainge gambled as he always does sometimes he wins and sometimes he loses.  Your unrealistic in this regard because drafting is always a crap shoot.   There are teams that find better players deep that contribute more than DA does, that does not mean he is a bad drafter by any means.   He is not as good as you present, Hwangjini.

Because you said all his players were always great value, that is a naive viewpoint that is very shallow.   I think a lot of them played ok in the NBA, but a lot of those value players were flawed in some way.   BBD, conditioning and tweener.  TA lacks a shot, Rondo lacks a shot, Sullinger and KO defensive liabilities and bad athletes.   Big AL does not play D, Perk could not stay healthy.  Now some of these have had long and productive careers in the NBA.   But I unlike you recall the ones that did not like Harangody, Melo, Kris Joseph, Giddens and Pruitt just to name a few.

Almost all these guys had flaws but a lot of them can play at the NBA level.   But their flaws prevent them from excelling except for a few of them.    Now we have dough-boy who ate himself into a stress fracture and a hippy that can't stay healthy or aggressive.

here are some picks that panned out well that he blew  Marc Gasol 48- 2007. Millsap 47-2007, Giannis Antetokounmpo 15- 2013, Gordon Deing 21-2013 and about every guy the spurs have drafted since he took tenure.  Mason Plumlee 22-2013, Nikola Pekovi? 2-31 2008, Ömer A??k 2-36 2008, DeAndre Jordan 2 35 2006, 2-40 2005 Monta Ellis, 2-43 2004 Trevor Ariza.   but as one can see if one looks past the surface there are all kinds of guys Ainge missed on too.  I think this more than demonstrates that he is not perfect as a drafter, no one is, but this is an area of weakness if he has one.

That being said, I do not agree with the original poster, I think we are lucky to have Ainge.   But I do not agree that he always gets value in the draft.

[thirstyboots18]

by the way, to assume that the business and talent recruitment of the nba today is comparable to that of the 1950s and 60s is unrealistic. too many changes, including the number of teams have taken place.

I have  seen this argument used over and over.     Now, perhaps thanks to TV, it is a major professional sport paying major salaries, and has  leagues for players of all ages.  I would suggest that the talent pool (per team) is at least as large as it was in the '50s and '60, and the athletes are in better shape, thanks to the advancement of training and medical techniques.  The players are also recruited world wide now.  (I still feel that those historic Celtics Teams would compete at the highest levels, today, though...I just don't accept that the talent pool is diluted.  What I can see though, is that League (and player) rules and regs and monetary restrictions have made it hard for ALL teams to recruit talent.   That does not make it harder on the Celtics than on other teams.  The trick seems to be to get quality players interested and anxious to join the team.  So far Danny has not been able to repeat his coup with Ray Allen and Kevin Garnet.  Let's hope that changes.

[hwangjini_1]

I was recently criticized for expressing  my  unappreciation for Danny Ainge as our GM. Others argued that I should be more appreciative and that other fan bases such as Sacramento and Brooklyn wouldn't complain about having Danny Ainge as their GM.

So you rephrase the question and come back more?  unbelievable!

Before he became GM the Celtics won 16 championships out of 60 and been to 18 NBA finals out of 60. That means the Celtics won 27 percent of the 60  NBA championships and been to 30 percent of the 60 NBA championship.

Different league, no free agency back then, so this is silly to discuss.

Few seem to agree with you because I would wager, you'll never realize how spoiled you are to be a Bostonian.   Other cities have long droughts or never win a championship  since the century turned Boston has been the city of champions.

I think Red was our best GM ever, DA is next and he has more guts than Red ever did and make the hard call to break up the second big three here.  I think we are 3 years ahead on the rebuild because he

comparison is to some mythical and clairvoyant GM who has the ability of drafting players today while knowing exactly how they will turn out 3 years into the future.

 

If your referring to me, I never said that.   Besides most knew that KO and Sully were slow and Ainge gambled as he always does sometimes he wins and sometimes he loses.  Your unrealistic in this regard because drafting is always a crap shoot.   There are teams that find better players deep that contribute more than DA does, that does not mean he is a bad drafter by any means.   He is not as good as you present, Hwangjini.

Because you said all his players were always great value, that is a naive viewpoint that is very shallow.   I think a lot of them played ok in the NBA, but a lot of those value players were flawed in some way.   BBD, conditioning and tweener.  TA lacks a shot, Rondo lacks a shot, Sullinger and KO defensive liabilities and bad athletes.   Big AL does not play D, Perk could not stay healthy.  Now some of these have had long and productive careers in the NBA.   But I unlike you recall the ones that did not like Harangody, Melo, Kris Joseph, Giddens and Pruitt just to name a few.

Almost all these guys had flaws but a lot of them can play at the NBA level.   But their flaws prevent them from excelling except for a few of them.    Now we have dough-boy who ate himself into a stress fracture and a hippy that can't stay healthy or aggressive.

here are some picks that panned out well that he blew  Marc Gasol 48- 2007. Millsap 47-2007, Giannis Antetokounmpo 15- 2013, Gordon Deing 21-2013 and about every guy the spurs have drafted since he took tenure.  Mason Plumlee 22-2013, Nikola Pekovi? 2-31 2008, Ömer A??k 2-36 2008, DeAndre Jordan 2 35 2006, 2-40 2005 Monta Ellis, 2-43 2004 Trevor Ariza.   but as one can see if one looks past the surface there are all kinds of guys Ainge missed on too.  I think this more than demonstrates that he is not perfect as a drafter, no one is, but this is an area of weakness if he has one.

That being said, I do not agree with the original poster, I think we are lucky to have Ainge.   But I do not agree that he always gets value in the draft.

please demonstrate i said exactly this.

[Celtics4ever]

Drafting is one of Danny's strengths. He gets a lot out of poor draft positions.

My bad you said this, sorry.

But I still think your comments about clairvoyance were directed at me, where they not?

[incoherent]

OP is looking at this with tunnel vision.

OP forgets about 20 year drought.

OP thinks the NBA is same as it was 60 years ago.

[Celtics#18]

I think fans have provided enough enlightening information to change my opinion of Danny Ainge