Is it good if the Celtics have 45-49 wins, get knocked out in second round?

[Scintan]

Is it good if the Celtics have 45-49 wins, get knocked out in second round?

No

Obvious follow-up question.  Why?

Because it would hurt draft position and, until this team has its next 'elite' player, winning battles in mediocreville makes it harder to reach the ultimate goal.

Not necessarily.
If we win the division and beat Brooklyn every time, we might get a really good draft pick.

And every single elite player might decide to quit at the exact same time, too!  Nobody ever thinks of that possibility, either.


However, in NBA reality, winning enough games to be the #5-8 seed and get crushed in the playoffs is a bad thing, unless you've got your developing elite player.

[GC003332]

It is a good thing because it will mean a good sustained performance level from 3 or 4 of the so called young and developing players, Smart,Zeller,Olynyk.... increasing their trade value around the league.

[crimson_stallion]

My contention is that the Celtics underperformed in the first half of the season and that balances out with overachieving after the break so that 40 wins was a reasonable expectation.  The Celtics have a lot of young players who are likely to be better next season.  They've added Amir Johnson, who seems to be a bit of a test case for the value of advanced metrics, which tend to paint Johnson as an excellent player.  There's a legitimate chance that he blooms late like Paul Millsap.

I'd peg the Celtics as a likely 40-45 win team, which is probably good enough for the playoffs.  But they could be better.

This question is aimed primarily at the posters who wished Boston had missed the playoffs, complain about the so-called "treadmill of mediocrity", and think that the team should enter tank mode.  How would you view the direction of the team if this off-season's changes led to enough incremental improvement to make it to the second round of the playoffs, then losing in 4 or 5 games to, let's say, the Cavs again?

I think it's extremely positive, for a few reasons:

1) I think that in the eyes of the league (and other players around the league) it elevates the Celtics from "team who barely made the playoffs, got swept in the first round, probably didn't deserve to really be there" to "team who made the playoffs comfortably, beat at least one playoffs team in a 7 game series, and has huge potential")

2) I think it takes away any possibility that opposing players may see out 2014/15 playoff run as a fluke, which is what it would look like if fail to make the playoffs next year.  If you make the playoffs two years in a row then it's not a fluke, and you prove you are a playoff team.

3) If we've gone from a 7th seed, 1st round elimination to a 5th seed, second round elimination then it shows we are a team that is improving / progressing - not a team that's just first round fodder forever (e.g. the Hawks in the Joe Johnson era). 

4) A team that's a 7th seed, first round exit, will be seen my most free agents as a team that is on the right track, but still needs multiple pieces added before it can really be taken seriously as a contended.  A Team that's a 4th/5th seed and makes it to the second round, comes across as a team that may be one great piece away from being a contender.

I think factors like this elevate you from a team who might be consdered by 3rd tier free agents who just want to be on a competitive team (like Greg Monroe, Tobias Harris) to a team that could draw legit interest from top tier free agents who want a legit shot at a title (Like Aldridge, DeAndre Jordan, etc).

Being a really bad lottery team makes you worse than all of those.  It puts you in a position where no free agent wants you, none of your assets are really worth anything, and the only way you can go anywhere is by hoping you hit gold in the draft.

[crimson_stallion]

Is it good if the Celtics have 45-49 wins, get knocked out in second round?

No

Obvious follow-up question.  Why?

Because it would hurt draft position and, until this team has its next 'elite' player, winning battles in mediocreville makes it harder to reach the ultimate goal.

Because using the approach of sucking and drafting elite players every year has worked phenomenally well for teams like Sacramento, Charlotte and Minnesota.

When you have 1 or 2 future elite players plus 6 or 7 good ones in a draft that contains a total of about 50 players your chance of getting that elite player is...pretty low

Check the top 4 teams in each conference from last season:

* Atlanta (left mediocrity when they got Millsap, Korver, Teague via trade/FA)
* Cleveland (left mediocrity when they got Lebron and Love via trade/FA)
* Chicago (Got Rose, Noah, Butler via draft)
* Toronto Raptors (left mediocrity when they got Lowry and Louis Williams via trade/FA)
* Wizards (Left mediocrity when they got Pierce, Gortat and Nene via trade/FA)

* Golden State (Got Thompson and Curry via draft)
* Houston (left mediocrity when they got Harden / Howard via Trade / FA)
* Clippers (Left mediocrity when they got got CP3 via trade/FA)
* Portland (Got Lillard via Draft and Aldridge via Trade/FA - LMA was drafted by Chicago)
Memphis

Ok so out of all 8 teams that finished with top 4 seeds last year, only (Chicago, Golden State and Clippers) got where they are mainly because of guys they got via the draft.  The remaining 6 all made the jump from mediocrity to contender status by picking up key players in trades or free agency.

[ForexPirate]

I think that what the OP considers overachieving after the allstar break is what you can expect from a Brad Stevens team/  His teams are more than the sum of their individual parts.

That said, the original poster posed a question about getting knocked out in the second round.  I believe that if we were matched with anyone else in the east other than Cleveland that this group of over achievers may have gotten to the second round.

[Scintan]

Is it good if the Celtics have 45-49 wins, get knocked out in second round?

No

Obvious follow-up question.  Why?

Because it would hurt draft position and, until this team has its next 'elite' player, winning battles in mediocreville makes it harder to reach the ultimate goal.

Because using the approach of sucking and drafting elite players every year has worked phenomenally well for teams like Sacramento, Charlotte and Minnesota.

Danny Ainge was hired by Boston in 2003.  Go write down a list of his top 10 draft picks.  Then, not counting the lucky Allen/Garnett situation, get back to me about how his way has been somehow superior.  Drafting high when you don't already have talent doesn't guarantee success, but it helps (this is true in every one of the major U.S. sports leagues).  Drafting low when you don't already have talent almost guarantees failure (this is almost exclusively an NBA thing, among the major U.S. sports leagues).

When you have 1 or 2 future elite players plus 6 or 7 good ones in a draft that contains a total of about 50 players your chance of getting that elite player is just outstandingly high

Or, you could be honest with yourself and acknowledge that the NBA is a league with limited high end talent, and an almost absolute requirement that you have some of that high end talent in order to seriously compete for the title.  Then you can look at Boston's inability to even get 2nd and 3rd level talent to sign with the team as free agents. 

Then, hopefully, you'll figure out why getting 45-49 wins with this squad would be a bad thing.  It's nothing against the Celtics, the Celtics players, the Celtics coaching staff or the Celtics front office.  It's just the reality of the current NBA model.

[crimson_stallion]

Danny Ainge was hired by Boston in 2003.  Go write down a list of his top 10 draft picks.  Then, not counting the lucky Allen/Garnett situation, get back to me about how his way has been somehow superior. 

Over 12 seasons with Danny Ainge at the help the Celtics have:

* One championship
* One loss in the NBA finals
* One lost in the Conference finals
* 9 playoff appearances
* 7 seasons with a > 0.500 win record

I'd like you to make me a list of teams who have had a better run then that over the past 13 years who DO NOT owe a significant amount of that success to key free agent / trade acquisitions.

I'll start with the Spurs...and I'm about done.

Your turn.

Or, you could be honest with yourself and acknowledge that the NBA is a league with limited high end talent, and an almost absolute requirement that you have some of that high end talent in order to seriously compete for the title.  Then you can look at Boston's inability to even get 2nd and 3rd level talent to sign with the team as free agents. 

Since Danny was signed in 2003, could please make a list for me of all the seasons in which Boston has entered free agency with enough cap space to sign a 2nd or 3rd level talent?

If I'm not mistaken I believe that:
1) This off-season is the first
2) This off-season is not yet concluded

So you're going to completely discredit Danny's approach of trying to build via trades / free agency based one one single off-season (that's not even over yet) in which he actually had the ability to do so...

But then you're going to completely ignore the vast number of examples of teams have tanked for draft picks and yet still continued to suck for years afterwards...

While also completely ignoring the significant number of teams that have won and/or competed for titles because of talent added via trades and free agency.

Right.

Obviously the end goal for everybody (both the tank crowd and the non-tank crowd) is to win a championship - right?

So how many teams in the past 15 seasons have intentionally tanked in order to get a high draft pick(s) and then gone on to win a championship within 3-4 years of getting that draft pick?

On the other hand, how many teams have added significant players via trades and free agency, and have then gone on to win a championship within 3 years of adding said players?

Again, my answer for the former is San Antonio Spurs - I cannot think of one single other team.  For the latter I can think of many.

[GC003332]

Is it good if the Celtics have 45-49 wins, get knocked out in second round?

No

Obvious follow-up question.  Why?

Because it would hurt draft position and, until this team has its next 'elite' player, winning battles in mediocreville makes it harder to reach the ultimate goal.

Because using the approach of sucking and drafting elite players every year has worked phenomenally well for teams like Sacramento, Charlotte and Minnesota.

Danny Ainge was hired by Boston in 2003.  Go write down a list of his top 10 draft picks.  Then, not counting the lucky Allen/Garnett situation, get back to me about how his way has been somehow superior.  Drafting high when you don't already have talent doesn't guarantee success, but it helps (this is true in every one of the major U.S. sports leagues).  Drafting low when you don't already have talent almost guarantees failure (this is almost exclusively an NBA thing, among the major U.S. sports leagues).

When you have 1 or 2 future elite players plus 6 or 7 good ones in a draft that contains a total of about 50 players your chance of getting that elite player is just outstandingly high

Or, you could be honest with yourself and acknowledge that the NBA is a league with limited high end talent, and an almost absolute requirement that you have some of that high end talent in order to seriously compete for the title.  Then you can look at Boston's inability to even get 2nd and 3rd level talent to sign with the team as free agents. 

Then, hopefully, you'll figure out why getting 45-49 wins with this squad would be a bad thing.  It's nothing against the Celtics, the Celtics players, the Celtics coaching staff or the Celtics front office.  It's just the reality of the current NBA model.

Getting Garnett with a deal centred around the 15th pick with the 18th pick as part of the package, not lucky, genius I say.
Best of both worlds remain competitive and get your higher picks from other teams, Brooklyn, Dallas.
But if that happened, Ainge would just be lucky I guess

[BornReady]

this is not a good situation
as we are essentially a mediocre team
that is not considered a true contender + no franchise player

[crimson_stallion]

this is not a good situation
as we are essentially a mediocre team
that is not considered a true contender + no franchise player

To get a franchise player is exceptionally difficult, no matter what approach you take. It requires:

1) Lots of work / planning to put you in a position where you have the ABILITY to get a franchise player

2) The pure luck on your side to actually make it happen

This is the case regardless of whether you:

a) Build via the draft - You need to suck enough to get in the lottery, you need to get lucky enough for the ping pong balls to fall in your favour, you need to get lucky enough that the guy you pick doesn't bust

b) Via free agency - You need to work hard to clear cap space, you need to work hard to make your team attractive to free agents, you need to get lucky enough that one free agent actually wants to join you more than any other team

c) Via trades - You need to work hard to build up assets that give you the value / flexibility to be in a position to make any type of trade that comes up, you need to be lucky enough to find a willing trade partner (who has a star they want to trade, who has salaries compatible with yours, that has use for your assets)

Every single method of team building requires an equal amount of smart planning and luck.  This is why every second team doesn't have a franchise player, and why there are always so many teams who clear tons of cap space but don't get a star...or get high draft picks and end up with a crappy player.

Out of all the methods available the draft is risking because:
1) It's the only option that REQUIRES your team to be really bad (hence losing fan interest, ticket sales, etc) along the way

2) It's the only one that's completely unpredictable - nobody knows where the ping pong balls are gong to bounce.  You could have the second worst record in the league and still only get the #5 pick.

3) It's the only one that involves gambling on players who are completely unproven - you can get a top three pick and there is still a pretty decent chance you won't get an impact player (e.g. Bennett, Milicic).

Free Agency and Trade routes are not GUARANTEED by any means.  You can have all the cap space and assets on earth and still fail to secure a star player...but the draft is no different.  At least this way you get to see your team win some games in the process, because I can assure you that it would have sucked BAD to be a 76ers/Kings/Wolves/Bobcats fan the past 4-5 years and watching your team put up losing seasons one after the other....and still have no certainty that you're going to be good anytime soon.

[walker834]

I expect the Celtics to compete every year. I don't like predictions in general because every year is a new season.  Who knows how far this team can go right now.  The supposed experts aren't always right.  PLayers used to play with a chip on their shoulder and use that kind of stuff as motivation.  Now it seems like players play to what is expected of them.

It's a talent league but the Celtics aren't exactly devoid of talent here.

[Cman]

"Yes" to the extent that it.....

Raises the profile of Boston as a FA destination
Increases the trade value of our players
Harms the Nets and anyone else whose draft pick we own
Is entertaining to us fans

[P stoff]

maybe you should ask this question to the Clippers.

Every year they jockey their coach, lineup, bring in the piece thats sure to put them over the top...

How many rings have they won again?

They are getting closer...so the answer is that improvement is GOOD as long as you can build on it. We are 1/2 a year from blowing up our roster and have still done pretty well in the improvement area.  Contending is not easily achieved from ground zero.

[walker834]

Something lacking today with players and people today which is heart.  People are too analytical.  There's no telling what this team can achieve.  This is almost why I hope we get a guy like Cousins to stir things up a bit. The guy has issues but he plays with fire.

[Smokeeye123]

If you like championships and want the rebuild to be over....

No