Danny Should Say to Brad: Thanks for Costing Us Winslow, Dude

[BlackCeltic]

I thought the point of winning was to build team chemistry, and a winning chemistry is the culture of the Boston Celtics? Its sickening to see how many people are caught up on the names on the backs of the jerseys rather than the front.

Talking about building chemistry and a winning culture right now is like talking about having the right windows and flooring in your house before you've even laid the foundation or procured any of the lumber for the structure itself.

First things first.

Winning is first.

[Jesus Shuttlesworth #20]

Hard to take a thread seriously that has the word 'Dude' in the title.

[PhoSita]

I thought the point of winning was to build team chemistry, and a winning chemistry is the culture of the Boston Celtics? Its sickening to see how many people are caught up on the names on the backs of the jerseys rather than the front.

Talking about building chemistry and a winning culture right now is like talking about having the right windows and flooring in your house before you've even laid the foundation or procured any of the lumber for the structure itself.

First things first.

Winning is first.

Winning what, 35-40 games?  Or is the goal to win 50, 55, 60 games?  Very different ingredients required for the second goal.

[BlackCeltic]

I thought the point of winning was to build team chemistry, and a winning chemistry is the culture of the Boston Celtics? Its sickening to see how many people are caught up on the names on the backs of the jerseys rather than the front.

Talking about building chemistry and a winning culture right now is like talking about having the right windows and flooring in your house before you've even laid the foundation or procured any of the lumber for the structure itself.

First things first.

Winning is first.

Winning what, 35-40 games?  Or is the goal to win 50, 55, 60 games?  Very different ingredients required for the second goal.

Winning everything...every loose ball, every play, every practice, every quarter...from summer league until the last game of the season. Period.

[D.o.s.]

^ that is a brutally empty sentiment, but I'm sure it sounds great on the silver screen.

I mean Stevens won 25 games last year and he still hasn't coached a team to a winning season, so I can't imagine Ainge would be too put out about it.

I would like to sarcastically thank Brad Stevens for failing to win a couple more games so that I get to listen over and over to people pulling out the lame criticism that he hasn't coached a team to a winning season yet.

It's not a criticism, it's a fact, and it's significantly less controversial than anything else postulated within this thread.

Coaches have relatively little to do with winning and losing compared to the players on the roster. That's another fact, and another reason why Ainge shouldn't be put out about Stevens's record one way or another, because Ainge has a large amount of control when it comes to shaping that record.

I think you're just salty that the Kevin Love ship re-sailed and that Bradley could get moved, too. Not a good look, LC.

[MBunge]

I thought the point of winning was to build team chemistry, and a winning chemistry is the culture of the Boston Celtics? Its sickening to see how many people are caught up on the names on the backs of the jerseys rather than the front.

Talking about building chemistry and a winning culture right now is like talking about having the right windows and flooring in your house before you've even laid the foundation or procured any of the lumber for the structure itself.

First things first.

And most of the complaints around her are like little kids who play with Legos criticizing how an urban planner does his job.

Mike

[D.o.s.]

I thought the point of winning was to build team chemistry, and a winning chemistry is the culture of the Boston Celtics? Its sickening to see how many people are caught up on the names on the backs of the jerseys rather than the front.

Talking about building chemistry and a winning culture right now is like talking about having the right windows and flooring in your house before you've even laid the foundation or procured any of the lumber for the structure itself.

First things first.

And most of the complaints around her are like little kids who play with Legos criticizing how an urban planner does his job.

Mike

Unqualified people complaining about how people all around and about the NBA do their jobs? That's the CelticsBlog way!

Which is to say, the point of a discussion forum is to discuss. The quality of the thoughts isn't something you can control.

[P stoff]

I'm still trying to fathom how Justice Winslow was worth all this frustration. I just dont see him being THAT good...neither did some other teams so he dropped to 10. He wasnt even discussed much until he had some good games against a weak NCAA field Duke played against.

Also, the talk about value of picks depends on who you are offering it to. Charlotte had no interest in our multiple picks because they want PLAYERS that are established (win now). If we had a player they liked, and we added a pick or two, then they would have done it. As it was, Frank can probably get more PT than anyone they could have gotten at 16.

I think the Knicks want players and picks... but could still be a partner if Phil doesnt want Melo mad at him. Maybe he does, so he can have Melo be the bad guy. Either way, you have to have a team that needs multiple picks before they have great value, unless the pick is very early.

[MBunge]

Coaches have relatively little to do with winning and losing compared to the players on the roster.

So, the players on Boston's roster last season were substantially better than the players in Charlotte, Orlando, Brooklyn, Philly, Miami, New York, Indiana, Detroit, Sacramento, Utah, Phoenix, LA, Minnesota and Denver?  That doesn't seem to jibe with the general attitude around here toward the team.

Mike

[MBunge]

I thought the point of winning was to build team chemistry, and a winning chemistry is the culture of the Boston Celtics? Its sickening to see how many people are caught up on the names on the backs of the jerseys rather than the front.

Talking about building chemistry and a winning culture right now is like talking about having the right windows and flooring in your house before you've even laid the foundation or procured any of the lumber for the structure itself.

First things first.

And most of the complaints around her are like little kids who play with Legos criticizing how an urban planner does his job.

Mike

Unqualified people complaining about how people all around and about the NBA do their jobs? That's the CelticsBlog way!

Which is to say, the point of a discussion forum is to discuss. The quality of the thoughts isn't something you can control.

The level of discourse is something that's controlled or policed in nearly all areas of life, including message boards.  Why don't people say the F-word in church or say the N-word at all any more?  It's not against the law.

Mike

[PhoSita]

Which is to say, the point of a discussion forum is to discuss. The quality of the thoughts isn't something you can control.

That, and also I would hazard a guess that at least a few of the many people posting here, who spend lots of their time watching, following, discussing, and learning about professional basketball are actually more knowledgeable than at least some of the nitwits who have managed to find themselves in the position of General Manager in the NBA at some point in the league's history.

The idea that fans are so much less knowledgeable than the guys working in front offices holds less water now than it did 15 or 20 years ago.  That's not to say that most people expressing opinions on the Internet -- including myself -- are more cut out to perform the job of GM than any of the guys currently doing that job every day. 

Still, I think you can legitimately analyze and, yes, criticize the way that GMs operate without having to be a professional.  They're not performing heart surgery.

[BlackCeltic]

Which is to say, the point of a discussion forum is to discuss. The quality of the thoughts isn't something you can control.

That, and also I would hazard a guess that at least a few of the many people posting here, who spend lots of their time watching, following, discussing, and learning about professional basketball are actually more knowledgeable than at least some of the nitwits who have managed to find themselves in the position of General Manager in the NBA at some point in the league's history.

The idea that fans are so much less knowledgeable than the guys working in front offices holds less water now than it did 15 or 20 years ago.  That's not to say that most people expressing opinions on the Internet -- including myself -- are more cut out to perform the job of GM than any of the guys currently doing that job every day. 

Still, I think you can legitimately analyze and, yes, criticize the way that GMs operate without having to be a professional.  They're not performing heart surgery.

I don't totally disagree, but Danny Ainge is a championship winning ex NBA player. I could never fathom such a perspective on the game and the NBA as a business.

[PhoSita]

Coaches have relatively little to do with winning and losing compared to the players on the roster.

So, the players on Boston's roster last season were substantially better than the players in Charlotte, Orlando, Brooklyn, Philly, Miami, New York, Indiana, Detroit, Sacramento, Utah, Phoenix, LA, Minnesota and Denver?  That doesn't seem to jibe with the general attitude around here toward the team.

Mike

The Celtics had really good chemistry, a lot of luck, a good regular season game plan, and a whole bunch of guys playing for their next pay check.  They also had quality depth.  All of those things helped them win more games than expected.  They were also very well coached, which helped too.

Having depth and good chemistry is different than being able to say that the best two or three players on the roster can stand up well next to the best players on the other teams around the league.  That's where the Celts fall short, and that's a big part of why they were completely hopeless in the playoffs, where elite players make the biggest difference.


The Celtics won 40 games last season, sure, but if you were to judge their roster based on the collection of talent at the top -- i.e. how good are the best players on the team -- they had one of the least talented rosters in the league.  Indeed, they were right there with the Lakers, Timberwolves, Knicks, and Nuggets. 

[D.o.s.]

Coaches have relatively little to do with winning and losing compared to the players on the roster.

So, the players on Boston's roster last season were substantially better than the players in Charlotte, Orlando, Brooklyn, Philly, Miami, New York, Indiana, Detroit, Sacramento, Utah, Phoenix, LA, Minnesota and Denver?  That doesn't seem to jibe with the general attitude around here toward the team.

Mike

Pho did a great job answering a lot of this, but I would also add that the Boston Celtics hold the record for the fastest single-season turnaround in NBA history and they did it with the same coach who had lead them to one of the six most futile records in franchise history.

Although, as always, I appreciate the discussion.

[JHTruth]

Which is to say, the point of a discussion forum is to discuss. The quality of the thoughts isn't something you can control.

That, and also I would hazard a guess that at least a few of the many people posting here, who spend lots of their time watching, following, discussing, and learning about professional basketball are actually more knowledgeable than at least some of the nitwits who have managed to find themselves in the position of General Manager in the NBA at some point in the league's history.

The idea that fans are so much less knowledgeable than the guys working in front offices holds less water now than it did 15 or 20 years ago.  That's not to say that most people expressing opinions on the Internet -- including myself -- are more cut out to perform the job of GM than any of the guys currently doing that job every day. 

Still, I think you can legitimately analyze and, yes, criticize the way that GMs operate without having to be a professional.  They're not performing heart surgery.

It is an interesting topic. How can tell you how many times I've thought "what a terrible signing", or "this trade was a great!", "that guy is a bust all the way". And sure enough it all pans out that way.

But it's one thing to talk on a message board. It's another thing to make these decisions when franchise futures and millions of dollars are st stake. Making franchise making-or-breaking decisions is a little different than commenting on it afterwards..