Author Topic: We're not that far off....  (Read 10452 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: We're not that far off....
« Reply #60 on: May 15, 2015, 07:55:16 PM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15742
  • Tommy Points: 1386
We aren't far from contending as long as you assume bringing in three all-stars is an easy thing to accomplish.

As-is, this is probably a 35-45 win roster. Without major additions, it would be a 50/50 shot of making the playoffs next year.

Throw all the pessimism you want at this thread, you can't deny that a .500 team is not far off.

A .500 team is not far off from the bottom, either. 

In fact, we're closer to the bottom (24 more wins) than we are to the top (27 less wins).

That's not to say we don't have a chance.  But as much as our "position" is being glorified, I could easily argue that (currently worse) teams like Philly, New York and the Lakers are closer to contending. 

I was asked to make a guest post for a blog back in March that covered my reasoning on that very topic:  http://www.celticslife.com/2015/03/closer-to-contending-knicks-lakers.html

I just picked those teams, because they are all "prestige" teams that are currently in the dumps.   Boston ended up making the playoffs, but I think my points are still valid.  We have a lot of positive things going for us (mainly our coach, management and organization are a draw) and we have a solid chance at adding some talent here, but you could make a case that most of the 15 lotto teams this year have good things going for them as well.   Like, would you rather be in Boston's position... or Minnesota?  I definitely pick Minnesota (Wiggins, #1 projected pick and lots of young assets).   Boston made the playoffs and Oklahoma didn't... who would you rather be?  We finished two games above the Pacers... anyone really think we're further along than them?  Etc.

Every year you make the case for lotto teams having good things going for them, then the reality of the situation comes to bear, lack of on court success , you know wins and losses, not hype and hope.
Look at Sacramento 9 years and counting, Minnesota 11 years and counting, the list goes on , how long do you want to erode the fan base, under this notion of hope for the future before they catch on to somebody is sure getting paid an truck load of cash for stinking up the place, but wait we can let the said rookie stat pad to hype some meaningless award, or stat pad to  try and get into a meaningless all star game.
Sad part about it teams have been doing it for decades and playing farm league for the actual teams that put forth an effort to actually win titles.
How many years do you want to live on this false notion?
Oh let's pay a GM 12 mil a season to just tear down almost the complete roster and try and sign free agents in their prime to partner up with Melo ha ha good idea Knicks.
NBA where the accountability for actual on court performance is at an all time low.
Let's rollout the dancers and have a gimmick giveaway to sell to the fans when the hope and hype subsides, lol, as long as everybody gets paid who cares right.
Good to have owners that have a commitment to actual winning and hire GM's that can actually turn around franchises, not just this false hype and hope line that young potential more often than not leads to. ::)

How did the Twolves trade of Young to the Nets for KG help out their on court performance, sold a few more tickets to home games , how about actually winning some games.Diverted attention from yet another woeful season for a few weeks , yippee KG is back.
You just illustrated the point well... it's exceptionally hard to move from irrelevance to contending.   By saying I think Philly, New York and the Lakers are "closer" to contending, I'm not saying they will get there.  Boston might not get there either.  I'm just saying that I like the cards in their hand more.  That doesn't guarantee them success.  Gotta see how it plays out.  There's a shot we'll get lucky in spite of having a weaker hand.

My central point is that all those teams are arguably closer to landing a star (or already have one).  Because Boston is further away from landing a star, I see them as further away from contending.  Yet, at the moment... we're a better team.  So what?   In 2012, Philly upset the #1 seed Bulls and took the Ray/Pierce/KG/Rondo Celtics to 7 games... next year they were back in the lotto.

I don't really get using Philadelphia as an example at all, in fact using them seems to be making the opposite of the point you are trying to make. They traded away their best player, Andre Igodula who was probably the definition of a star at that point in his career coming off a second team all defensive and all star season and traded him for a guy that wouldn't play a game for them. They also lost a still very solid Elton brand who was one of their better big defenders and still putting up 11 and 6 that year. It also looks like they traded away Vucevic after that season. If they had stayed the course and kept Vucevic, Brand and Iggy they very welll could have been a championship contender at some point in the next few seasons with a few smart mid level signings.

Edit: I just realized they lost Lou Williams after that seasons too. Man how interesting would it have been to see that team together.

I think it's grasping to call Iggy a 'star' of franchise proportions.
He had a great few years and got up near the 20 ppg range on decent shooting, but even his one All Star appearance was as a replacement wasn't it?

Iggy's career certainly has trailed off since he was traded from Philly, but at the time he was coming off back to back second team all-defense seasons and the first of what seemed like probably a couple of all star appearances at the age of 28. The fact that that was his best season is a bit befuddling.

 However, my larger point was that if that team was left to stay together they really could have been very good. Vucevic developed into a near all-star level center, louis williams turned into a very good scorer and brand was solid for another year or two. It would have been really interesting to see what that group could have done if they had not blown it up for bynum. Do I think they win the championship? No, but they would have been in a lot better position to make moves to put themselves in championship consideration.

Holiday
Turner
Iggy
Vucevic
Williams

with some good mid-level signings (maybe a ray allen type) that team gets in the mix all of a sudden. Or they could have traded Turner for someone that was more established at the time of the draft.

Re: We're not that far off....
« Reply #61 on: May 15, 2015, 08:03:59 PM »

Offline Monkhouse

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6932
  • Tommy Points: 814
  • A true Celtic plays with heart.
We aren't far from contending as long as you assume bringing in three all-stars is an easy thing to accomplish.

As-is, this is probably a 35-45 win roster. Without major additions, it would be a 50/50 shot of making the playoffs next year.

Throw all the pessimism you want at this thread, you can't deny that a .500 team is not far off.

A .500 team is not far off from the bottom, either. 

In fact, we're closer to the bottom (24 more wins) than we are to the top (27 less wins).

That's not to say we don't have a chance.  But as much as our "position" is being glorified, I could easily argue that (currently worse) teams like Philly, New York and the Lakers are closer to contending. 

I was asked to make a guest post for a blog back in March that covered my reasoning on that very topic:  http://www.celticslife.com/2015/03/closer-to-contending-knicks-lakers.html

I just picked those teams, because they are all "prestige" teams that are currently in the dumps.   Boston ended up making the playoffs, but I think my points are still valid.  We have a lot of positive things going for us (mainly our coach, management and organization are a draw) and we have a solid chance at adding some talent here, but you could make a case that most of the 15 lotto teams this year have good things going for them as well.   Like, would you rather be in Boston's position... or Minnesota?  I definitely pick Minnesota (Wiggins, #1 projected pick and lots of young assets).   Boston made the playoffs and Oklahoma didn't... who would you rather be?  We finished two games above the Pacers... anyone really think we're further along than them?  Etc.

Every year you make the case for lotto teams having good things going for them, then the reality of the situation comes to bear, lack of on court success , you know wins and losses, not hype and hope.
Look at Sacramento 9 years and counting, Minnesota 11 years and counting, the list goes on , how long do you want to erode the fan base, under this notion of hope for the future before they catch on to somebody is sure getting paid an truck load of cash for stinking up the place, but wait we can let the said rookie stat pad to hype some meaningless award, or stat pad to  try and get into a meaningless all star game.
Sad part about it teams have been doing it for decades and playing farm league for the actual teams that put forth an effort to actually win titles.
How many years do you want to live on this false notion?
Oh let's pay a GM 12 mil a season to just tear down almost the complete roster and try and sign free agents in their prime to partner up with Melo ha ha good idea Knicks.
NBA where the accountability for actual on court performance is at an all time low.
Let's rollout the dancers and have a gimmick giveaway to sell to the fans when the hope and hype subsides, lol, as long as everybody gets paid who cares right.
Good to have owners that have a commitment to actual winning and hire GM's that can actually turn around franchises, not just this false hype and hope line that young potential more often than not leads to. ::)

How did the Twolves trade of Young to the Nets for KG help out their on court performance, sold a few more tickets to home games , how about actually winning some games.Diverted attention from yet another woeful season for a few weeks , yippee KG is back.
You just illustrated the point well... it's exceptionally hard to move from irrelevance to contending.   By saying I think Philly, New York and the Lakers are "closer" to contending, I'm not saying they will get there.  Boston might not get there either.  I'm just saying that I like the cards in their hand more.  That doesn't guarantee them success.  Gotta see how it plays out.  There's a shot we'll get lucky in spite of having a weaker hand.

My central point is that all those teams are arguably closer to landing a star (or already have one).  Because Boston is further away from landing a star, I see them as further away from contending.  Yet, at the moment... we're a better team.  So what?   In 2012, Philly upset the #1 seed Bulls and took the Ray/Pierce/KG/Rondo Celtics to 7 games... next year they were back in the lotto.

I don't really get using Philadelphia as an example at all, in fact using them seems to be making the opposite of the point you are trying to make. They traded away their best player, Andre Igodula who was probably the definition of a star at that point in his career coming off a second team all defensive and all star season and traded him for a guy that wouldn't play a game for them. They also lost a still very solid Elton brand who was one of their better big defenders and still putting up 11 and 6 that year. It also looks like they traded away Vucevic after that season. If they had stayed the course and kept Vucevic, Brand and Iggy they very welll could have been a championship contender at some point in the next few seasons with a few smart mid level signings.

Edit: I just realized they lost Lou Williams after that seasons too. Man how interesting would it have been to see that team together.

I think it's grasping to call Iggy a 'star' of franchise proportions.
He had a great few years and got up near the 20 ppg range on decent shooting, but even his one All Star appearance was as a replacement wasn't it?

Iggy's career certainly has trailed off since he was traded from Philly, but at the time he was coming off back to back second team all-defense seasons and the first of what seemed like probably a couple of all star appearances at the age of 28. The fact that that was his best season is a bit befuddling.

 However, my larger point was that if that team was left to stay together they really could have been very good. Vucevic developed into a near all-star level center, louis williams turned into a very good scorer and brand was solid for another year or two. It would have been really interesting to see what that group could have done if they had not blown it up for bynum. Do I think they win the championship? No, but they would have been in a lot better position to make moves to put themselves in championship consideration.

Holiday
Turner
Iggy
Vucevic
Williams

with some good mid-level signings (maybe a ray allen type) that team gets in the mix all of a sudden. Or they could have traded Turner for someone that was more established at the time of the draft.

Drafting Turner was probably their biggest folly...

To think we have Turner now, and we probably wouldn't draft him if we had a chance to.
"I bomb atomically, Socrates' philosophies and hypotheses
Can't define how I be dropping these mockeries."

Is the glass half-full or half-empty?
It's based on your perspective, quite simply
We're the same and we're not; know what I'm saying? Listen
Son, I ain't better than you, I just think different

Re: We're not that far off....
« Reply #62 on: May 15, 2015, 08:04:38 PM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • NCE
  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20000
  • Tommy Points: 1323
Quote
Yeah but the trades that Ainge made from a pure basketball perspective to give Stevens some more actual talent( IT4)to work with seemed legit.Wether they made the playoffs or not I don't think would have influenced his thinking at the trade deadline considering the C's record at the time, he was just looking to make the best deal available to him.

I was simply playing devil's advocate.  Ainge almost does what is best for the team, though it is not always readily apparent.    We won't really see dividends for a few years down the road.

Re: We're not that far off....
« Reply #63 on: May 15, 2015, 08:36:30 PM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016
We aren't far from contending as long as you assume bringing in three all-stars is an easy thing to accomplish.

As-is, this is probably a 35-45 win roster. Without major additions, it would be a 50/50 shot of making the playoffs next year.

Throw all the pessimism you want at this thread, you can't deny that a .500 team is not far off.

A .500 team is not far off from the bottom, either. 

In fact, we're closer to the bottom (24 more wins) than we are to the top (27 less wins).

That's not to say we don't have a chance.  But as much as our "position" is being glorified, I could easily argue that (currently worse) teams like Philly, New York and the Lakers are closer to contending. 

I was asked to make a guest post for a blog back in March that covered my reasoning on that very topic:  http://www.celticslife.com/2015/03/closer-to-contending-knicks-lakers.html

I just picked those teams, because they are all "prestige" teams that are currently in the dumps.   Boston ended up making the playoffs, but I think my points are still valid.  We have a lot of positive things going for us (mainly our coach, management and organization are a draw) and we have a solid chance at adding some talent here, but you could make a case that most of the 15 lotto teams this year have good things going for them as well.   Like, would you rather be in Boston's position... or Minnesota?  I definitely pick Minnesota (Wiggins, #1 projected pick and lots of young assets).   Boston made the playoffs and Oklahoma didn't... who would you rather be?  We finished two games above the Pacers... anyone really think we're further along than them?  Etc.

Every year you make the case for lotto teams having good things going for them, then the reality of the situation comes to bear, lack of on court success , you know wins and losses, not hype and hope.
Look at Sacramento 9 years and counting, Minnesota 11 years and counting, the list goes on , how long do you want to erode the fan base, under this notion of hope for the future before they catch on to somebody is sure getting paid an truck load of cash for stinking up the place, but wait we can let the said rookie stat pad to hype some meaningless award, or stat pad to  try and get into a meaningless all star game.
Sad part about it teams have been doing it for decades and playing farm league for the actual teams that put forth an effort to actually win titles.
How many years do you want to live on this false notion?
Oh let's pay a GM 12 mil a season to just tear down almost the complete roster and try and sign free agents in their prime to partner up with Melo ha ha good idea Knicks.
NBA where the accountability for actual on court performance is at an all time low.
Let's rollout the dancers and have a gimmick giveaway to sell to the fans when the hope and hype subsides, lol, as long as everybody gets paid who cares right.
Good to have owners that have a commitment to actual winning and hire GM's that can actually turn around franchises, not just this false hype and hope line that young potential more often than not leads to. ::)

How did the Twolves trade of Young to the Nets for KG help out their on court performance, sold a few more tickets to home games , how about actually winning some games.Diverted attention from yet another woeful season for a few weeks , yippee KG is back.
You just illustrated the point well... it's exceptionally hard to move from irrelevance to contending.   By saying I think Philly, New York and the Lakers are "closer" to contending, I'm not saying they will get there.  Boston might not get there either.  I'm just saying that I like the cards in their hand more.  That doesn't guarantee them success.  Gotta see how it plays out.  There's a shot we'll get lucky in spite of having a weaker hand.

My central point is that all those teams are arguably closer to landing a star (or already have one).  Because Boston is further away from landing a star, I see them as further away from contending.  Yet, at the moment... we're a better team.  So what?   In 2012, Philly upset the #1 seed Bulls and took the Ray/Pierce/KG/Rondo Celtics to 7 games... next year they were back in the lotto.

I don't really get using Philadelphia as an example at all, in fact using them seems to be making the opposite of the point you are trying to make. They traded away their best player, Andre Igodula who was probably the definition of a star at that point in his career coming off a second team all defensive and all star season and traded him for a guy that wouldn't play a game for them. They also lost a still very solid Elton brand who was one of their better big defenders and still putting up 11 and 6 that year. It also looks like they traded away Vucevic after that season. If they had stayed the course and kept Vucevic, Brand and Iggy they very welll could have been a championship contender at some point in the next few seasons with a few smart mid level signings.

Edit: I just realized they lost Lou Williams after that seasons too. Man how interesting would it have been to see that team together.

I think it's grasping to call Iggy a 'star' of franchise proportions.
He had a great few years and got up near the 20 ppg range on decent shooting, but even his one All Star appearance was as a replacement wasn't it?
I mean whatever. It's not the point. Brandon Bass was arguably the most important player during our playoff run and he's likely gone... The team overachieved.  There is an excellent chance we will be in the lotto next year.  It's going to take some dramatic additions to make this a real playoff team let alone a contender.

Re: We're not that far off....
« Reply #64 on: May 15, 2015, 08:52:58 PM »

Offline gpap

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8224
  • Tommy Points: 417

Also, its pointless to say we will be a bad team next year as it's assume we will sit on our hands all summer and bring in no help.

Right, but we can acknowledge that it's possible the best move on the table will be to make the most of the draft picks, maybe make one or two modest buy-low signings, and head into next year with a very similar roster.

God I hope this doesn't end up being the case.


IMO, I really dont think  any "Buy Low" players can help our team in the long run as far as contending is concern. We have a team which is just a giant supporting Cast.  Lowest Tier player I'd sign is like a Tobias or  a Wesley Matthews and im sure their expecting to get paid as well.

I REALLY FEEL STRONG if were not signing or trading for  an AllStar caliber player, we'll trade are role players, draft picks, and use TPE's do get more "Mid Tier" players.


No sense in having a team full of 4th and 5th options. Welll end up i na building loop like the Hawks were in prior

Celts Fan From NY: I agree with what you said (which I bolded) which is why I hope the potential scenario that PhoSita pointed out (which I also bolded) doesn't happen.

Because we have a team full of bench players, I want us to make some SERIOUS moves to put us back in to contention, not just be content with our draft picks and making one or two minor moves.

And certainly this could also end up happening, but I sure hope it doesn't. In other words, I am in the "fireworks" crowd.

Re: We're not that far off....
« Reply #65 on: May 15, 2015, 08:56:51 PM »

Offline gpap

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8224
  • Tommy Points: 417

Also, its pointless to say we will be a bad team next year as it's assume we will sit on our hands all summer and bring in no help.

Right, but we can acknowledge that it's possible the best move on the table will be to make the most of the draft picks, maybe make one or two modest buy-low signings, and head into next year with a very similar roster.

God I hope this doesn't end up being the case.


IMO, I really dont think  any "Buy Low" players can help our team in the long run as far as contending is concern. We have a team which is just a giant supporting Cast.  Lowest Tier player I'd sign is like a Tobias or  a Wesley Matthews and im sure their expecting to get paid as well.

I REALLY FEEL STRONG if were not signing or trading for  an AllStar caliber player, we'll trade are role players, draft picks, and use TPE's do get more "Mid Tier" players.


No sense in having a team full of 4th and 5th options. Welll end up i na building loop like the Hawks were in prior

I like what the Hawks have done.  They may not get to the NBA finals (they still aren't a sure thing to get to the conference finals).

I just have so much respect for the way they have successfully bucked the "superstar or bust" rebuilding model that so many fans and talking heads seem to advocate as the gold standard for rebuilding an NBA contender.

They chose Al Horford and Jeff Teague (two very good players, but not elite superstars) as their core guys to build around, and have spent the last few years putting a team together around those guys with additional very good, non-superstar players.

The Grizzlies, another team that I respect and root for, have built their team in a similar manner.

Although the two teams have very different styles on the court, I'm a big fan of these teams that have found ways to be highly competitive without the uber-stars.

I'd love to see the Celtics be able to follow a similar path.  To me, Marcus Smart and Kelly Olynyk seem like a good start.

it's admirable what ATL & Memphis have done. but it's not acceptable in Boston imo. the Celtics are one of the top teams in all of sports and they should have expectations to live up to.

while I personally would be fine if the Celtics chose to build the team the way ATL & Mem. have I don't want them to and don't want them to feel it's ok to do so.

GreenWarrior: I totally agree. While it's admirable what the Hawks and Griz have done, I'd like to see the Celts net that star player or players (think KG and Ray) that we can build around to get back to the championship.

Let's not forget the Hawks and Griz haven't won a championship yet and this is the first time I can remember the Hawks getting past the 1st round of the playoffs.

Re: We're not that far off....
« Reply #66 on: May 16, 2015, 02:13:22 AM »

Offline Smitty77

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3063
  • Tommy Points: 269
I would be really happy with Butler, DeAndre, moving up into lottery to snag a scorer and/or athletic + defensive wing in the draft, and resigning Pierce for a last hurrah. I doubt any of those happen though. I'm excited for this off-season but don't expect to make a big splash. IT was a nice surprise though, so trying to remain optimistic. As long as we don't draft Dekker, Kaminsky, or someone 6'10 with a 205 lb frame, that'd be a relief too. 

I don't think of Love, LMA, or the guys I've listed as superstars. Top 5 in league are superstars, the next 10-15 are very, very good players. Highly doubt we win a championship with Love as the best player on our team. Think of all the teams in the league with a better 1, and even 1 + 2. I'm too brain-dead to list, but I'm sure there is more than 5... LeBron + Kyrie, Steph and Klay (Id argue Dray too), Duncan + Leonard, Paul + Griffin, Gasol + Zbo/Conley, Westbrook + Durant, maybe even Wall + Beal or Teague + Horford/Millsap. Dead serious. I get he is being trumped due to the culture, his limited/adjusted role, and nightly comparison to best player in the world. But he plays one end of the floor... that's crap, especially considering our need for frontcourt toughness and a two way guy. We don't compete without dominant, go-to scorer (2 way guy, too), but we need a rim protector even more than that. 

Edit: Don't mean to minimize your point, Monkhouse. I respect you as a poster and agree with a vast majority of your opinions. Just feeling like we need more than one of those guys - perhaps 2 is the magic number? And I do strongly agree with have great glue guys that are championship pieces.

PLEASE explain to me WHY you don't want Dekker???????  Why???  Was ANYONE more clutch in the big NCAA tourney games??  If the Badgers needed a shot at a critical time, he simply delivered virtually EVERY time!!!!  Please educate me on this one. 

Thanks,

Smitty77


Just think about it this way.
In what world is Sam Dekker going up against starting NBA small forwards and scoring more than 10 ppg as an average?

Is Sam Dekker ever on the starting 5 of a championship team? Hell Naw.

Yes, all Sam did vs. NBA level talent in UNC, Arizona, and KY was shoot close to 70% from the field and 57% from three.  I will take these stats vs. marquee programs vs. measurements in Chicago all freaking day.

Smitty77