Author Topic: Is it good if the Celtics have 45-49 wins, get knocked out in second round?  (Read 8827 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Scintan

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3066
  • Tommy Points: 656
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

It was luck.  Garnett had a break from Minnesota ownership in the same year Allen came up, and Garnett's boss just happened to be an old friend of Ainge.  There's nothing wrong with that, and he'd been working towards just such a fortunate situation (and he has been trying to repeat that situation in recent years), but let's not be ridiculous about Ainge's overall tenure. 

I note that nobody's taken up the draft pick challenge, but multiple people have focused on the Garnett/Allen situation when my post was specifically about Ainge's moves/drafting other than that.  He had a great situation fall into his lap.  Outside of that, there's really no greatness to be found.


When people are free to do as they please, they usually imitate each other.

Offline crimson_stallion

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5964
  • Tommy Points: 875
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

It was luck.  Garnett had a break from Minnesota ownership in the same year Allen came up, and Garnett's boss just happened to be an old friend of Ainge.  There's nothing wrong with that, and he'd been working towards just such a fortunate situation (and he has been trying to repeat that situation in recent years), but let's not be ridiculous about Ainge's overall tenure. 

I note that nobody's taken up the draft pick challenge, but multiple people have focused on the Garnett/Allen situation when my post was specifically about Ainge's moves/drafting other than that.  He had a great situation fall into his lap.  Outside of that, there's really no greatness to be found.

How is building via the draft any different?

* How can the Spurs thank anything BUT luck for Tim Duncan falling in their laps?
* Likewise OKC with Durant?
* Likewise Chicago with Rose?
* Likewise Clevleand with Wiggins (without whom, they never would have gotten Love)

Every method of building requires luck. 

Ainge's acquiring of KG/Ray was no more 'lucky' than every one of the championships the Spurs have won since acquiring Duncan.

It was no more 'lucky' then all the great season's OKC has had since acquiring Durant instead of Oden (who they would have taken if the got the #1 pick)

Speaking of Duncan, didn't Boston tank hard in the 96-97 season in the hope of getting the #1 pick and picking up Tim Duncan?  They sure did, with an awesome 0.183 (15-67) win record.  Where did that get Boston?  [dang] that 'luck' think...
« Last Edit: July 03, 2015, 12:17:27 AM by crimson_stallion »

Offline hwangjini_1

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17833
  • Tommy Points: 2661
  • bammokja
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.
Welcome to the world of scintan. He isn't here to learn or change. He simply hammers the same points repeatedly. You might want to consider just leaving him alone.
I believe Gandhi is the only person who knew about real democracy — not democracy as the right to go and buy what you want, but democracy as the responsibility to be accountable to everyone around you. Democracy begins with freedom from hunger, freedom from unemployment, freedom from fear, and freedom from hatred.
- Vandana Shiva

Offline Scintan

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3066
  • Tommy Points: 656

How is building via the draft any different?

C'mon, man.  That's obvious.  Also, when Ainge was able to bring in Allen and Garnett, he already had Paul Pierce.  Where's this team's Paul Pierce?

How can the Spurs thank anything BUT luck for Tim Duncan falling in their laps?

Likewise OKC with Durant?

Likewise Chicago with Rose?

Likewise Clevleand with Wiggins (without whom, they never would have been able to get Love)?

Well, they sucked enough to earn their odds.  Was there luck?  Sure, but they only had the chance because of their lousy team.  The real luck for San Antonio is that Duncan was available in the one draft that followed Robinson's lost season.  That's not Ainge type luck.  That's Indianapolis Colts type luck (for, appropriately enough, Andrew Luck).

Every method of building requires like.  Ainge's acquiring of KG/Ray was no more 'lucky' than eveyr one of the championships the Spurs have won since acquiring Duncan.

You just gave a host of examples of what you called 'luck' as a counter to the one Garnett/Allen example, and you don't see why the Garnett/Allen example required more luck?

Speaking of Duncan, I believe Boston tanked that year in the hope of getting Duncan, didn't they?  How did that work out?

It sucked for Boston.  It sucked for them in 2007, too.  There are no guarantees here.  One can either play the odds or play against the odds.  That's all you can do.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2015, 12:34:10 AM by Scintan »


When people are free to do as they please, they usually imitate each other.

Offline Scintan

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3066
  • Tommy Points: 656
Welcome to the world of scintan. He isn't here to learn or change. He simply hammers the same points repeatedly. You might want to consider just leaving him alone.

I'm here to talk basketball.  I'm not here to fawn over every move the Celtics make.  This isn't live at a game, where you cheer for your team, win or lose.  This is a sports forum, where you talk about the good, the bad and the ugly involving your team and others.


When people are free to do as they please, they usually imitate each other.

Offline LooseCannon

  • NCE
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11833
  • Tommy Points: 950
Welcome to the world of scintan. He isn't here to learn or change. He simply hammers the same points repeatedly. You might want to consider just leaving him alone.

I'm here to talk basketball.  I'm not here to fawn over every move the Celtics make.  This isn't live at a game, where you cheer for your team, win or lose.  This is a sports forum, where you talk about the good, the bad and the ugly involving your team and others.

No one is disputing that you are here to talk basketball.  It sounds like some people think you are uninteresting, repetitive, and incapable of rational dialogue when you do so.
"The worst thing that ever happened in sports was sports radio, and the internet is sports radio on steroids with lower IQs.” -- Brian Burke, former Toronto Maple Leafs senior adviser, at the 2013 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference

Offline Ilikesports17

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8595
  • Tommy Points: 842
Quote
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).
The Challenge is tough because its really unfair to grade Smart and Young at this point so you are basically asking for the top 10 draft picks over 10 years. You dont get that many draft picks man!
I mean the list isnt bad.
Rondo(19)
Big Al(15)
#5 and Delonte(#24) for Ray Allen
Bradley(19)
Sullinger(21)
Tony Allen(25)
Perkins(27)
Glen Davis(35)
KO(13)
Quote from: George W. Bush
Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions.

Offline tarheelsxxiii

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8593
  • Tommy Points: 1389
Welcome to the world of scintan. He isn't here to learn or change. He simply hammers the same points repeatedly. You might want to consider just leaving him alone.

I'm here to talk basketball.  I'm not here to fawn over every move the Celtics make.  This isn't live at a game, where you cheer for your team, win or lose.  This is a sports forum, where you talk about the good, the bad and the ugly involving your team and others.

No one is disputing that you are here to talk basketball.  It sounds like some people think you are uninteresting, repetitive, and incapable of rational dialogue when you do so.

I don't know what others are thinking, but I don't find him to be that poster at all. His thoughts may not coincide with yours, or even the majority, but he is supporting his thoughts... hammering home his perspective just like many others do.
The Tarstradamus Group, LLC

Offline Scintan

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3066
  • Tommy Points: 656
Quote
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).
The Challenge is tough because its really unfair to grade Smart and Young at this point so you are basically asking for the top 10 draft picks over 10 years. You dont get that many draft picks man!
I mean the list isnt bad.
Rondo(19)
Big Al(15)
#5 and Delonte(#24) for Ray Allen
Bradley(19)
Sullinger(21)
Tony Allen(25)
Perkins(27)
Glen Davis(35)
KO(13)

I agree that it's too soon to grade Smart and Young, so let's just look at the list you gave me.  In all his drafts, with all the picks the Celtics have had, your list is basically an all-star team of Ainge draft picks (I don't want to go back and forth about possible snubs that others might bring up) and, really, where would that group, with every player in its prime, finish even in today's Eastern Conference?

My point isn't to bash Ainge's picks, either, because some of those picks have been very solid choices.  It's just to hammer home the point that, when you're picking outside of the lottery, it's extremely difficult to hit on great talents.


When people are free to do as they please, they usually imitate each other.

Offline crimson_stallion

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5964
  • Tommy Points: 875
C'mon, man.  That's obvious.  Also, when Ainge was able to bring in Allen and Garnett, he already had Paul Pierce.  Where's this team's Paul Pierce?

Who did the Knicks have when they signed Amare a few years back (which subsequently led to them getting Camelo the following year)?

Who did the Rockets have when they acquired James Harden a few years back (which subsequently led to them getting Howard afterwards).

What stars do the Bucks have right now (Monroe just signed with them)?

Who did the Brooklyn Nets have then Deron Williams (a Superstar at the time) signed there?

Who did the Clippers (a team notorious for being bad forever) have when CP3 signed there?

The notion that a team "needs" a star in order to sign other stars is not accurate.  Certainly it helps, but it's not a necessity.  It's not uncommon for players to go to a specific team because that team could offer lots of money, or offered a chance to be the top dog, or for any number of other reasons.

Well, they sucked enough to earn their odds.  Was there luck?  Sure, but they only had the chance because of their lousy team.  The real luck for San Antonio is that Duncan was available in the one draft that followed Robinson's lost season.  That's not Ainge type luck.  That's Indianapolis Colts type luck (for, appropriately enough, Andrew Luck).

Again, same thing.  Danny Ainge has earned his odds by putting his team in a position to have financial flexibliity, a winning culture and a large number of flexible assets. 

This means that that he now has to depend on the luck of having a team decide to want to trade, or a free agent choosing them as a location.

Given that any free agent usually only has as many as 5-6 suitors, the odds aren't that different to a bad team hoping the ping pong balls fall their way.

You just gave a host of examples of what you called 'luck' as a counter to the one Garnett/Allen example, and you don't see why the Garnett/Allen example required more luck?

Because it didn't.

You know what Cleveland's chances of securing the top pick in 2014 were?  Look it up.  They were very low - maybe 15% or something?

The only part of the KG deal that was luck for Boston was the Ray Allen deal.  That's only ONE move that required a big of luck.

Once Ray Allen had been acquired, then KG made the conscious decision to approve the trade and make the move to Boston.  Ainge would have known very well that if he got Ray Allen to Boston then he had KG too - all he had to do is make one of those domino's fall.

Teams pull off trades like the Ray Allen one relatively frequently, and it's really not any more 'lucky' then Clevleand getting the #1 pick in the draft last season or San Antonio getting it back in 1997.


It sucked for Boston.  It sucked for them in 2007, too.  There are no guarantees here.  One can either play the odds or play against the odds.  That's all you can do.

Precisely my point, and you play that same game whether you choose free agency, trades, or draft.

That's why you try to play all three, like Danny did this year - but came up unsuccessful.

Look at the 76ers - they are one of the most successful examples of tanking in recent years, and what do they have to show for it? 

Embiid, Okafor and Noel are their only assets of any value.  There is no certainty that either one of those guys is going to be a star looking at it from the current point in time. 

Their only way of acquiring talent is to sacrifice one or more of those three guys (the very guys that the draft has provided them with) and by doing that you're basically admitting that your tank efforts didn't succeed, because you've given up on that player.  Even if you do trade those guys, neither of them is (right now) likely to bring you  back an established star.  the Knicks aren't trading Melo for Okafor/Noel/Embiid anytime soon. 

Nobody else bar those three on the roster are with anything because you had to sacrifice every other player in order to be bad enough to tank so drastically to begin with.

So you tank for what...2 or 3 years minimum.  You get 2 or 3 high draft picks.  Lets say you get really lucky and two of those guys become stars (unlikely, but possible if you're REALLY lucky). 

Now you still aren't done because everybody else on your roster is garbage...so you still need to spend the next several years trying desperately to pick up support pieces to put around those stars in order for you to be able to actually win something.

Then by the time that happens the first couple of guys are getting to the end of their rookie deals, and if they are that good SOMEBODY will offer a max contract...so you need to match.   Eventially you end up with not enough space to sign all the guys, so you need to let someone go (e.g. Harden in OKC). 

IF you are lucky - I mean REALLY lucky - you get a few years of solid competitive basketball (like OKC).  Probably never win anything (like OKC) but you'll have a few good years.  Then guys start leaving, signing with other teams, and you're back where you started. 

This is why VERY FEW teams ever manage to successfully convert tanking for draft picks into championship rings. 

Atlanta were early playoff exit fodder for probably 4 or 5 years while JJ / Josh Smith were there.  You could argue that they are the grandest example of a team stuck in mediocrity.  Now they just finished with the best record in the East - they didn't tank to get there.

You could argue that for all those years it took Atlanta to finish atop the East, they probably still got there quicker than the 76ers will from this recent tanking approach.

So again, where is the evidence that tanking is more successful?

Offline crimson_stallion

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5964
  • Tommy Points: 875
Quote
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).
The Challenge is tough because its really unfair to grade Smart and Young at this point so you are basically asking for the top 10 draft picks over 10 years. You dont get that many draft picks man!
I mean the list isnt bad.
Rondo(19)
Big Al(15)
#5 and Delonte(#24) for Ray Allen
Bradley(19)
Sullinger(21)
Tony Allen(25)
Perkins(27)
Glen Davis(35)
KO(13)

I agree that it's too soon to grade Smart and Young, so let's just look at the list you gave me.  In all his drafts, with all the picks the Celtics have had, your list is basically an all-star team of Ainge draft picks (I don't want to go back and forth about possible snubs that others might bring up) and, really, where would that group, with every player in its prime, finish even in today's Eastern Conference?

My point isn't to bash Ainge's picks, either, because some of those picks have been very solid choices.  It's just to hammer home the point that, when you're picking outside of the lottery, it's extremely difficult to hit on great talents.

C: Al Jefferson / Kendrick Perkins
PF: Jared Sullinger / Kelly Olynyk / Glen Davis
SF: Tony Allen /
SG: Avery Bradley / Delonte West
PG: Rajon Rondo

You take all of those guys in their prime, throw in a freee agent or two to fill holes (backup PG, Small Forward) and that's a pretty [dang] solid team.

Definite playoff team, I'd say probably at least a 5th seed in today's East at least.  That team would give give Eastern Conference playoff team from 2014/15 (bar Cleveland) a very serious run.

I mean really, that's probably a better selection of players than the Bobcarts have gotten from years of high lottery picks...




Offline sawick48

  • Brad Stevens
  • Posts: 241
  • Tommy Points: 27
what good is it to keep getting better if we don't even have a core to build around yet?  all we have are random parts, many of which probably won't be here when their contracts run out.

regardless, i think 45-49 is a pretty high estimation for this squad.  look at the teams in the east that already had more talent than the C's (atl, cle, chi, was, mil, was) plus the ones that are arguably on the same plane as us talent wise (nyk, ind, tor).  the only teams in our conference that i'd say we are absolutely better than from a roster/talent standpoint are the magic and 6ers (with only Denver, LAL, sacto, and phx qualifying for that category in the west).

and lest we forget, we had a ton go right for us last season to get to that 38 win mark.  catching teams at the right time with injuries and rest (the late season games against Cleveland come to mind, catching brooklyn with DWill and Brook sidelined as well as the Knicks with their injuries) as well as our team being relatively healthy for the last couple months (save for Sully's foot).  Obviously Brad is an advantage and he's going to get all he can out of whatever squad he's at the helm of.  but 45-49 wins?  even in this weak conference i think that's a stretch. gun to my head, as constructed right now, i'd say we're a 37-42 win squad.

Celtic fans don't appreciate their own team.
We have some very good young players, and we are much better than last year.
Getting rid of Rondo and Bass and acquiring IT was huge.

it was an ok move that took us from the lottery to nba purgatory, first of all.

2nd of all i love my C's.  but im not delusional about them, as i find some people on these boards are.  i choose to be realistic and call things like i see them, and the way i see them is that our talent does not match up with many teams in our own conference.

and saying that we're "much better than last year" and "have some very good young players" are both a bit much.  in what way are we MUCH better?  amir johnson and a year of chemistry playing together is going to improve us by 10 wins, even though we have no discernable core, no rim protector, and no go to guy in the clutch?  chemistry is going to cover all those woes?  if you think so that's ok, i just happen to believe otherwise

Offline Scintan

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3066
  • Tommy Points: 656
Quote
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).
The Challenge is tough because its really unfair to grade Smart and Young at this point so you are basically asking for the top 10 draft picks over 10 years. You dont get that many draft picks man!
I mean the list isnt bad.
Rondo(19)
Big Al(15)
#5 and Delonte(#24) for Ray Allen
Bradley(19)
Sullinger(21)
Tony Allen(25)
Perkins(27)
Glen Davis(35)
KO(13)

I agree that it's too soon to grade Smart and Young, so let's just look at the list you gave me.  In all his drafts, with all the picks the Celtics have had, your list is basically an all-star team of Ainge draft picks (I don't want to go back and forth about possible snubs that others might bring up) and, really, where would that group, with every player in its prime, finish even in today's Eastern Conference?

My point isn't to bash Ainge's picks, either, because some of those picks have been very solid choices.  It's just to hammer home the point that, when you're picking outside of the lottery, it's extremely difficult to hit on great talents.

C: Al Jefferson / Kendrick Perkins
PF: Jared Sullinger / Kelly Olynyk / Glen Davis
SF: Tony Allen /
SG: Avery Bradley / Delonte West
PG: Rajon Rondo

You take all of those guys in their prime, throw in a freee agent or two to fill holes (backup PG, Small Forward) and that's a pretty [dang] solid team.

Definite playoff team, I'd say probably at least a 5th seed in today's East at least.  That team would give give Eastern Conference playoff team from 2014/15 (bar Cleveland) a very serious run.

I mean really, that's probably a better selection of players than the Bobcarts have gotten from years of high lottery picks...

But you just took the best of Ainge's drafting, and you got to 5th, in the East, which is probably not even a playoff team in the West.  That's a good example of why so many NBA fans want their teams to tank instead of looking to move up a few games in a lousy conference.  And then you hope that you get lucky with the lottery, and you hope that Michael Jordan isn't drafting for your team.

It's a crappy hand, but it's pretty much what the NBA gives out to the middling teams.


When people are free to do as they please, they usually imitate each other.

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016
This doesn't look like a 45 win team to me.   I think it's going to be tough for them to win 40 again.  This roster is pretty weak.

Offline crimson_stallion

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5964
  • Tommy Points: 875
But you just took the best of Ainge's drafting, and you got to 5th, in the East, which is probably not even a playoff team in the West.  That's a good example of why so many NBA fans want their teams to tank instead of looking to move up a few games in a lousy conference.  And then you hope that you get lucky with the lottery, and you hope that Michael Jordan isn't drafting for your team.

It's a crappy hand, but it's pretty much what the NBA gives out to the middling teams.

Yeah, but that's based on nothing BUT drafting, on a team who hasn't used drafting as it's method of building...

If you can make a 5th seed or better in the East using nothing but draft picks in the > 10 range then you're doing pretty [dang] good.

In the real world you use other moves - like trades and free agency - to add talent in addition to the draft.  You use all of your available resources.

I don;t think the 76ers could build a team any better than a 5th seed if they use all of their top 10 draft picks from the past 10 years either...it goes both ways. 

and saying that we're "much better than last year" and "have some very good young players" are both a bit much.  in what way are we MUCH better?  amir johnson and a year of chemistry playing together is going to improve us by 10 wins, even though we have no discernable core, no rim protector, and no go to guy in the clutch?  chemistry is going to cover all those woes?  if you think so that's ok, i just happen to believe otherwise

You're basing all of this on the assumption that the Celtics run after the all-star break last year was a fluke.

If we played they way we did after the all-star break for the entire season, then we'd have been a top 4 seed easily.  Add a few wins to that and you could be looking at top 3.

Your response to that, i assume, is that the run was just a fluke.  If the run happened out of nowhere (we just happened to start playing well suddenly) then I would agree with you.  however the time the run started was pretty much dead in line with the time Ainge made numerous changes to the roster and rotation, which leads me to believe the run was no fluke.

I know that this argument is done to the death, but looking at teams like Atlanta and San Antonio the last couple of years is the very definition of how a team with no major stars (but a good amount of depth and versatility) can compete at a very high level IF that team plays as a unit.

If you guys are going to try to tell me that the Spurs had even half as much talent as the Heat in 2013/14 I will laugh hysterically.  Kawhi Leonard is their best player and is not even close to Lebron James...and nobody else on that Roster (not Duncan, not Parker) is much of a step above our own best players in the current point in their careers.

Similar thing can be said for the Hawks.  Milsap is arguably their best player, and they finished with the best record in the East and one of the best in the league).  Who did the Hawks add since 2013/14 to give them that dramatic jump in wins?  Nobody of major significance...and they also had no rim protector (please, don't try to tell me Horford is a rim protector).

I'm not trying to argue that the Celtics will contend for a title (as the Spurs did in 13/14) or that they'll take the top record in the East (as the Harks did in 14/15), i'm just making the point that  while most teams take the superstar approach to winning (and that having those stars certainly helps) having a top heavy team is certainly not the ONLY way to win.