Steve Bulpett: Next year's team could be worse than this years

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

Yes, let's strive for mediocrity again next year .  Ridiculous how some people would rather see this team back into the playoffs every year then actually gets some stars to keep us as a team to deal with for years to come.

Minny (w/ Love), Sacto, Mia (this season), BKN (lol), Pels (even this season) etc. They all have stars and some never even make the playoffs. 

It's ridiculous for you to believe we don't want stars on the team. It will be very hard to find someone who says we don't need them, the way we get them is the debate.

[PhoSita]

Superstars don't guarantee that teams won't be worse from one season to the next. Yep, any team can be good one season and stink or regress the next.

You'll notice I didn't say superstars are a guarantee.  There is no guarantee.

That said, having an excellent 2 or 3 man core is, and always will be, the most likely way to sustain long term success, at least in the regular season. 

If you have a couple superstars healthy for most of a regular season, it's tough not to win at least 50 games, even if you get off to a rough start, as has happened with a number of LeBron's teams over the years.

[PhoSita]

In the spirit of your last comment, who are the superstars on the grizzlies or hawks. I thought the whole identity of the hawks was that they didn't have a superstar. I can see one might say Wall is a superstar with the Wizards, but I generally thought of him in the all star category rather than a superstar (durant, harden, curry, lebron, davis, westbrook)

TP. I was going to point this out as well.  It's what I admire so much about the Hawks and the Grizzlies.  I like teams that are able to compete at a high level despite not having elite level superstars.

You're right, the Hawks don't have a superstar, and that is their thing.  I overlooked them in the group Celtics18 listed. 

In my mind, though, Marc Gasol and John Wall are absolutely superstars.  I'd place them in the top 3 or 4 guys at their respective positions.

[TheFlex]

We're still on this?

We need the Draft sooner than later.

[JHTruth]

We went on a very nice run to close the season. We won't sneak up on teams next year, and maybe we won't go on a hot streak next year. Barring major player additions, we could easily be worse next year.

[celticsclay]

In the spirit of your last comment, who are the superstars on the grizzlies or hawks. I thought the whole identity of the hawks was that they didn't have a superstar. I can see one might say Wall is a superstar with the Wizards, but I generally thought of him in the all star category rather than a superstar (durant, harden, curry, lebron, davis, westbrook)

TP. I was going to point this out as well.  It's what I admire so much about the Hawks and the Grizzlies.  I like teams that are able to compete at a high level despite not having elite level superstars.

You're right, the Hawks don't have a superstar, and that is their thing.  I overlooked them in the group Celtics18 listed. 

In my mind, though, Marc Gasol and John Wall are absolutely superstars.  I'd place them in the top 3 or 4 guys at their respective positions.

For Wall (who i like), is he better than curry, westbrook or paul?

I would put him a level lower with guys like Irving, Conley and Lillard. That puts him more as a star than a superstar.

This could just be verbal jousting based on defition of superstar. I have always thought it meant top 5-10 player in the game that can lift a team into playoffs by themselves. The other guys are just all-stars. If you put Wall or Gasol on last years Knicks they still don't make the playoffs. If you put lebron or Curry or Durant I think they do. 

[TheFlex]

Look, I'll be the first to admit it's entirely possible the team could win MORE games next year if they head into next year with substantially the same roster. 

It's not just entirely possible, it's more likely than not.

You ask things like why people are "certain" that we'll be better. Sure, I said definitively that we "won't" be worse, just like many of those that agree with your point of view say definitively that we "won't" get Love. Everyone agrees there is an existent albeit slim chance of landing Love, but it is "slim" that is the key word which makes such absoluteness excusable.

In other words, there is a chance that 5-6 of our best young guys look worse than they did last year, but the chances of such an outcome don't seem significant enough to me to even inject it as an alarming possibility into the conversation.

Knowing the NBA as you obviously do, I'm just not sure why you bristle so aggressively at the idea that the Celtics, without major changes to upgrade the roster, could win fewer games next year. 

Unless you really think that dumping Rondo and Green and adding Isaiah Thomas and Jae Crowder to the roster was really enough to make this a sure-thing 45-50 win roster moving forward, as opposed to the 25-30 win underachiever it was with those guys in featured roles.


You've argued that it's irrational to believe that more or less the same group of players, minus a few veterans, could be a worse team (record-wise) next year than this past season.

While I can see that point of view -- you have a young team, young players have a tendency to get better over time, and the team posted a much better record in the second half of this season compared to the first half -- I don't think it jives with the way things tend to go in the NBA.


If you believe, as I do, that much of the success of the Celtics over the second half of this season was due to:

(1) opponents' lack of familiarity with this group,

(2) opponents' lack of effort or interest in winning games compared to the Celtics, looking to make a playoff push, and

(3) the fact that many of the players on the Celtics were eager to prove their worth, because they were in a contract year or because they had just gotten dumped by the team that originally signed them

then it doesn't seem so unreasonable to suggest that if the team lets go of Bass, Jerebko, and Crowder and replaces them with inexperienced, unproven, underdeveloped young players, that the team might be worse.


This attitude that the young Celtics will almost certainly improve and build on their run to the seventh seed tends to disregard the reality that almost every other team in the conference intends, and even expects, to improve next season, as well.  All it takes is for a few veteran teams that fell off this past season -- e.g. Heat, Hornets, and Pacers -- to return to form and suddenly the Celts are on the outside looking in, again.


There are any number of factors that can go into a team succeeding or failing in the regular season.  We could simulate this past season with the roster the Celtics had in the playoffs and the win totals could vary wildly, from 25 to 50.  The young guys on this team could improve next year, Brad Stevens could continue to do a great job as a coach, and this team could play at or near the same level as they did in March and April of this season, and the Celts could still win up with 5-10 fewer wins than last year.

Sorry for the aggression. Your camp (but not you) of thought on this issue tends to adopt a domineering intellectualism about themselves when explaining their point, so I feel I have to dish some of that condescension back the other way 

The way I understood the argument was, if we brought back largely the same team (so Jerebko leaving, Datome leaving, and replacing Bass' minutes with Sullynyk), how would they fare? You bring up a number of points that support that they would be worse. I agree with them. Some guys won't improve as much as we like. Some guys - like Evan Turner - could be even worse. We'll play, on average, better teams than we did at the end of the season. More crucial to your argument is the reality that teams will come to play us every night, instead of just taking us as a joke.

All of that being said, some of our guys will get better. Again, I can't think of a team in the past with the makeup we have now (5-6 guys 25 and under, 7-8 guys 28 and under) that saw all of their major young pieces stagnate or regress. If there is/has been, that team is the exception, not the rule. So ultimately, even if the negatives end up outweighing the positives (more players regress than improve, other teams' preparation for a legit Celtics squad trumps our players' increased confidence that they can win, etc.), I do not see it having the drastic impact you are claiming it could. We played .645 ball after the ASB (and won 4 of 5 heading into the Break). I've conceded that this currently constructed team could fall to .500 ball. You're going as far to say they might only be able to scrap out 30-35 wins, which would be as much as a 20-25% drop in Win Percentage. That's too extreme for me.

[gpap]

The Warriors could be worse next year, so could the Hawks, the Cavs, the Rockets, the Grizzlies, the Wizards, etc . . .

It's a silly point to harp on.  Of course the Celtics could be worse.

You know what I'm going to say right?  We've played the Ying and Yang on here long enough for that.

Those other teams have something the Celtics don't ... say it with me ... superstars! 


We will, of course, find out in due time.  Honestly, I'd be fairly surprised if the roster isn't pretty different a few months from now, either because a few established talents have been added, or because Danny has decided to take a young roster in an even younger direction.  So all of this is probably just academic. 

But hey, what else do we have to do around here, argue over who is gonna win the Finals, or bandy back and forth over the best might-one-day-be-a-borderline-starter prospect to take with #16?

In the spirit of your last comment, who are the superstars on the grizzlies or hawks. I thought the whole identity of the hawks was that they didn't have a superstar. I can see one might say Wall is a superstar with the Wizards, but I generally thought of him in the all star category rather than a superstar (durant, harden, curry, lebron, davis, westbrook)

TP. I was going to point this out as well.  It's what I admire so much about the Hawks and the Grizzlies.  I like teams that are able to compete at a high level despite not having elite level superstars.

But the Hawks and Grizzlies do have elite talent in Gasol, Randolph, Conley, Horford, Millsap, Carroll and Teague. I guess we can quibble on whether some of those guys mentioned are "superstars" but certainly they have a higher echelon of talent than the Celtics do.

[gpap]

I am surprised this thread has gotten as many responses as it has.

Maybe I don't want to face reality, but unless I am missing something, Bulpett provides ZERO evidence or reasoning as to why he even thinks we'll be worse next year, let alone that actually ending up being the case.

He basically is blowing hot air out of his mouth like Sherrod does (not saying Bulpett doesn't have credibility, but this sounds more like a senseless prediction than something with actual substance behind it.)

Also, if I may add something else. For those saying there's nothing wrong with running back the same team next year, I couldn't DISAGREE MORE and I think even Jackie MacMullen wrote a similar article.

The Celts ABSOLUTELY NEED to improve because next year it will be even MORE difficult to get free agents with the salary cap increasing.

In my mind, the Celts can't afford to play the status quo this summer and the hell with the rebuild.

[PhoSita]

I am surprised this thread has gotten as many responses as it has.

I really think it's because there's not much else to talk about right now, and we really have no idea what Danny Ainge can or will do this summer.

We're still on this?

We need the Draft sooner than later.

Agreed wholeheartedly.  At least the Finals will be starting in ... three days.

[PhoSita]

For Wall (who i like), is he better than curry, westbrook or paul?

....

This could just be verbal jousting based on defition of superstar.

You're right that the definition of superstar is fairly subjective and malleable, so I won't go too deep into this, but here's what I'll say:

A point guard who can and does put up 20 pts and 10 assists on a regular basis while rebounding well for his size, playing very good defense (including but not limited to generating steals), and occasionally taking over offensively meets the definition of superstar in my mind.

Wall is right behind the three guys you mentioned at his position, and in some ways I think he may be better than Russell Westbrook because he's a good defender and he makes his teammates better.

[Celtics18]

The Warriors could be worse next year, so could the Hawks, the Cavs, the Rockets, the Grizzlies, the Wizards, etc . . .

It's a silly point to harp on.  Of course the Celtics could be worse.

You know what I'm going to say right?  We've played the Ying and Yang on here long enough for that.

Those other teams have something the Celtics don't ... say it with me ... superstars! 


We will, of course, find out in due time.  Honestly, I'd be fairly surprised if the roster isn't pretty different a few months from now, either because a few established talents have been added, or because Danny has decided to take a young roster in an even younger direction.  So all of this is probably just academic. 

But hey, what else do we have to do around here, argue over who is gonna win the Finals, or bandy back and forth over the best might-one-day-be-a-borderline-starter prospect to take with #16?

In the spirit of your last comment, who are the superstars on the grizzlies or hawks. I thought the whole identity of the hawks was that they didn't have a superstar. I can see one might say Wall is a superstar with the Wizards, but I generally thought of him in the all star category rather than a superstar (durant, harden, curry, lebron, davis, westbrook)

TP. I was going to point this out as well.  It's what I admire so much about the Hawks and the Grizzlies.  I like teams that are able to compete at a high level despite not having elite level superstars.

But the Hawks and Grizzlies do have elite talent in Gasol, Randolph, Conley, Horford, Millsap, Carroll and Teague. I guess we can quibble on whether some of those guys mentioned are "superstars" but certainly they have a higher echelon of talent than the Celtics do.

Yeah, but some of those "stars" on that list are fairly late bloomers.  I'd like to think we've got a couple, two, three guys who aren't quite done blossoming yet. 

[gpap]

The Warriors could be worse next year, so could the Hawks, the Cavs, the Rockets, the Grizzlies, the Wizards, etc . . .

It's a silly point to harp on.  Of course the Celtics could be worse.

You know what I'm going to say right?  We've played the Ying and Yang on here long enough for that.

Those other teams have something the Celtics don't ... say it with me ... superstars! 


We will, of course, find out in due time.  Honestly, I'd be fairly surprised if the roster isn't pretty different a few months from now, either because a few established talents have been added, or because Danny has decided to take a young roster in an even younger direction.  So all of this is probably just academic. 

But hey, what else do we have to do around here, argue over who is gonna win the Finals, or bandy back and forth over the best might-one-day-be-a-borderline-starter prospect to take with #16?

In the spirit of your last comment, who are the superstars on the grizzlies or hawks. I thought the whole identity of the hawks was that they didn't have a superstar. I can see one might say Wall is a superstar with the Wizards, but I generally thought of him in the all star category rather than a superstar (durant, harden, curry, lebron, davis, westbrook)

TP. I was going to point this out as well.  It's what I admire so much about the Hawks and the Grizzlies.  I like teams that are able to compete at a high level despite not having elite level superstars.

But the Hawks and Grizzlies do have elite talent in Gasol, Randolph, Conley, Horford, Millsap, Carroll and Teague. I guess we can quibble on whether some of those guys mentioned are "superstars" but certainly they have a higher echelon of talent than the Celtics do.

Yeah, but some of those "stars" on that list are fairly late bloomers.  I'd like to think we've got a couple, two, three guys who aren't quite done blossoming yet.

Sure, I would agree that Marcus Smart is only going to get better and better and better to the point that he certainly could eclipse someone like Conley, Teague and the like.

[Celtics18]

The Warriors could be worse next year, so could the Hawks, the Cavs, the Rockets, the Grizzlies, the Wizards, etc . . .

It's a silly point to harp on.  Of course the Celtics could be worse.

You know what I'm going to say right?  We've played the Ying and Yang on here long enough for that.

Those other teams have something the Celtics don't ... say it with me ... superstars! 


We will, of course, find out in due time.  Honestly, I'd be fairly surprised if the roster isn't pretty different a few months from now, either because a few established talents have been added, or because Danny has decided to take a young roster in an even younger direction.  So all of this is probably just academic. 

But hey, what else do we have to do around here, argue over who is gonna win the Finals, or bandy back and forth over the best might-one-day-be-a-borderline-starter prospect to take with #16?

In the spirit of your last comment, who are the superstars on the grizzlies or hawks. I thought the whole identity of the hawks was that they didn't have a superstar. I can see one might say Wall is a superstar with the Wizards, but I generally thought of him in the all star category rather than a superstar (durant, harden, curry, lebron, davis, westbrook)

TP. I was going to point this out as well.  It's what I admire so much about the Hawks and the Grizzlies.  I like teams that are able to compete at a high level despite not having elite level superstars.

But the Hawks and Grizzlies do have elite talent in Gasol, Randolph, Conley, Horford, Millsap, Carroll and Teague. I guess we can quibble on whether some of those guys mentioned are "superstars" but certainly they have a higher echelon of talent than the Celtics do.

Yeah, but some of those "stars" on that list are fairly late bloomers.  I'd like to think we've got a couple, two, three guys who aren't quite done blossoming yet.

Sure, I would agree that Marcus Smart is only going to get better and better and better to the point that he certainly could eclipse someone like Conley, Teague and the like.

I think Kelly Olynyk could reach Millsap levels, but I know most think I'm out to lunch on that one.

Also, not sure what will become of James Young.  He's still very young (pun unavoidable), and we haven't really gotten to see him get any burn yet.

Who knows?  He could easily still amount to something.

Sully could still keep growing (pun intended) as well. 

[Celtics18]

 

The Celtics played very well in the last couple months of this past season, but how will they sustain that energy over time as they face opponents who have faced this version of the Celtics multiple times, and without the benefit of being the ones who are always giving more effort and hustle every night?

Why weren't the teams we faced down the stretch last season giving the same effort and hustle as the Celtics?

We played a bunch of teams over the course of the last thirty games that were in a dogfight with us for those last two playoff spots; teams like Brooklyn, Indiana, Miami and Charlotte.  We were six and one against those teams from the end of February until the end of the season. 

We beat a Grizzlies team in early March that was healthy and still playing for playoff position.  A week earlier we beat a Pelicans team on the road that was fighting for their playoff lives.  We had a big win up in Toronto in April, in a game that was meaningful to the home team.  We beat them again in our house right at the end of the season in a game that still had seeding implications for the Raptors.

When we went on the road and beat a Phoenix team that was one game over .500 on February 23rd. I'm guessing the Suns still saw the playoffs as a possibility at that point.

We had a tough win against Utah over this span.  I remember this as a much anticipated, tough battle against a team that was playing well and had become a bit of a darling of the NBA based on their young talent and improved play.  Their star player really wanted to beat his old college coach in that one. 

So, if your theory is that all these teams just laid down against the lowly Celtics because they didn't respect us or didn't really care about the results, I say if that's the case, shame on them.  Power to us.

I don't really believe that's what happened, though.  I agree that grit and hustle was a big part of why we won those games, though.  I also believe that grit and hustle is a big part of the identity established by this year's team.  I hope they carry that identity and culture into the future.