D.o.s, it doesn't really surprise me that you'd be so ho-hum about Noel's potential. I had a couple interns here at Grantland scour this blog for some of our old correspondence. Let me take you back two years ago to May 2013. Anthony Davis had just finished up his "ho-hum" rookie season averaging 13 points and 8 rebounds. I was prancing around singing praises about Davis and blatantly calling him the "second coming of Kevin Garnett" using some of the same basic analytics I'm using today to discuss Nerlens Noel and getting many of the same incredulous responses. Meanwhile, KG and Pierce were still toiling away on a mediocre dead-end Celtic squad that was in dire need of a shake-up (they were traded to Brooklyn two months later).
Here was I post I made about the New Orleans Hornets (pre-Pelicans) and how the NBA (previously acting owner of the team) did them a favor by vetoing the Chris Paul Lakers trade.
Look at it this way... The New Orleans Hornets initially were set to trade Chris Paul for a package that would net them Lamar Odom, Kevin Martin, Luis Scola and Goran Dragic.
The NBA (acting owner of the Hornets) smartly declined the trade. WHy? ... well it was simple really. It wasn't petty. It wasn't corruption. It was "baskeball reasons" and those "basketball reasons" made a heck of a lot of sense. Short-sighted fans looked at that trade and said, "That's not a bad deal! That's a lot of talent... they could make the playoffs with that talent!" ... And sure, maybe they would. But they were eliminating a Top-5 player in Chris Paul and replacing him with a bunch of mediocre fringe-stars. None of those guys were all-stars. At most they would have won 35-45 games. Meanwhile, they would have saddled themselves with 100 million dollars worth of bad salary if they made that deal... they would have ruined any shot of drafting a franchise player... and they would have stuck themself into a rut of perpetual mediocrity.
At the time, I thought the veto made TOTAL sense. In retrospect, it made even more sense. Odom was a travesty in Dallas. Scola was so mediocre, his team didn't mind amnestying him. K-Mart is currently coming off the bench. I like Dragic, but Dragic isn't an impact player.
The alternative? Young Eric Gordon, the pick that became #10 (Austin Rivers) and most importantly... addition-by-subtraction... putting yourself in position to tank and land a top 5 pick (the superstar scratch ticket). Now, Gordon and Rivers so far look underwhelming... but that superstar scratch ticket nabbed them the second coming of Kevin Garnett (Anthony Davis). I'd gladly take that Hornets roster over ours... Davis is the future. You absolutely can build a contender around Anthony Davis if he develops the way we expect him to.
"Running it back" is akin to accepting that Scola/Odom/Martin/Dragic trade. You'll put yourself in a fine position to win 45 games. If KG/PP retire and we decide to march out a team built around Rondo, Green, Bradley, Bass and Sully... you're looking at a 25-38 win team. Best case: 1st round exist. Worst case: Mid-Lotto.
As much as I love Rondo, there isn't a single player on this team you can build a contender around. There is no Anthony Davis on this squad. We're severely lacking in quality assets... Bradley alone probably wouldn't net a lotto pick. Sully was a late 1st rounder for a reason. Beyond that, there's nothing on this team in terms of value. The contracts of Bass, Terry and Lee are borderline terrible. Green is alright, but will never be an all-star. If KG and Pierce retire, you're looking at a perpetually mediocre team. Too good to suck. Too bad to contend.
A couple notes. I appear to be right about Davis developing into a KG-level force. I appeared to be right about Bradley's trade value (just was reported we were offered late 1sts for him this season). I was right about Green never becoming an all-star. I was right that a team of Rondo, Green, Bradley, Bass and Sully gets you about 28-38 wins. On the flip side, I may have undersold Dragic (maybe) and may have underestimated Lord Ainge's ability to get miracle value for ancient KG/Pierce, but two years later the "perpetually mediocre team" warning seems pretty prophetic... my friend Zach wrote an article about that just yesterday:
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/a-playoff-problem-if-the-celtics-are-trying-to-rebuild-then-why-the-postseason-push/ So what was your response, D.o.s?
Firstly, I like the way you bury the caveats all through your post. It's a nice rhetorical strategy.
It happens first when you call Davis the second coming of KG, and then spend another ten or so words before you acknowledge the point that he has to develop the way you think he will in order for that statement to make sense.
*sigh*... Now here we are again two years later and people in this forum are calling me a troll for daring to mention Nerlens Noel in the same sentence as sacred Anthony Davis. I don't get it.
Footnote... Later in that same thread I said:
Let me pause for a second. I'd argue that MKG has more trade value than Rondo. I'd also argue that their pick (projected #2 in this draft) also has more trade value than Rondo.
To which AB_Celtic responded: "Just false". Nah... Judging by the mediocre haul we received for Rondo and how those within the league rave about MKG's defensive dominance (still only 21 years old) and improved offensive game, I think it's fair to say I was probably right on that one as well.