Author Topic: Is it good if the Celtics have 45-49 wins, get knocked out in second round?  (Read 8831 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline tazzmaniac

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8113
  • Tommy Points: 549
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?
My contention is that the 1st half of the season was much harder than the 2nd half of the season.  We played an extremely hard November schedule.  Our 2nd half benefited from playing more weak East teams, playing more tanking teams and at the end playing teams that were resting their better players for the playoffs. 

Offline LGC88

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1500
  • Tommy Points: 167
Many good points were made in those 4 pages.
Like Crimson said, there are 3 main plans for championship :

1. Draft
2. Free Agency
3. Trades

Now, depending of who you are as a franchise, your priority might change.
Let's say for the Lakers, their priority would be 2. 3. & 1. Obviously they are the first choice for most of the free agents. They only have to work on putting a desirable roster to attract better talents.

Now for the Celtics, number 2 is not our priority obviously. I don't think the owners will appreciate that Danny tank hard for 3 years. In fact I suspect Wyc told him not to tank purposely, because of the tickets sales. So the Trades is Boston's main plan.
It appears that trades is Danny Ainge's best ability (he's arguably the best in nba at that).
And I'm surprised he managed to make Draft his plan B while maintaining full flexibility and make TD garden happy to buy tickets.

I honestly don't think we have a better plan than what Danny is doing right now, which is going after a cornerstone guy, not average star that will put Boston in mediocrity and stuck for years with the money fully committed.
Yes, it's very tempting to go after Harris, Monroe, etc. But it doesn't make you a serious contender and he kills your flexibility to acquire a superstar.

The next time a Harden or a Cousins is available via trade, high chance is ours.
In a mean time, you get to enjoy a great team chemistry that fight really hard. And that's all I'm asking from this franchise.

Offline Greyman

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 784
  • Tommy Points: 211
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.

TP here. Like to add, with a fit Sully, Young contributing more and improvement coming possibly from a number of players and squad overall (a year wiser under the CBS system), the Celtics could 'overachieve' by more next season.

Offline YeezusChrist

  • Jrue Holiday
  • Posts: 337
  • Tommy Points: 19
.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2015, 08:41:08 AM by YeezusChrist »

Offline SHAQATTACK

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 36776
  • Tommy Points: 2961
I ve said for years ,  as long as LeBron is in the East and healthy ......he automatically makes the team he is on odds on favorite to win the east.

He is just that dominate ...still.....

Danny figures he can't get enough stars together to beat LeBron .......so chill.....rebuild slow .....waiting for LeBron to fade .

He is right .......there isn't a Westbrooke , Harden, Durrant , Spurs .....not enough talent to take down JUST LeBron himself ...he is a one man army .

Chicago is throwing spitballs at LeBron and Irving .


This is going to be the most Lopsided season ever in the a East .

LeBron , Love and Irving will destroy the East .

So .......unless LeBron has Heath issues the East is decided.

Offline mctyson

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5087
  • Tommy Points: 372
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 am not one of those but I will take the liberty of answering your question with a resounding YES, it is good.  I would even say GREAT.

Offline mctyson

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5087
  • Tommy Points: 372
regardless, i think 45-49 is a pretty high estimation for this squad. 

They won 40 games last year after completely remodeling the roster on the fly and blowing tons of leads in the 4th Q.  You don't think they can win 5 more games?

Offline YeezusChrist

  • Jrue Holiday
  • Posts: 337
  • Tommy Points: 19
.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2015, 08:42:49 AM by YeezusChrist »

Offline mctyson

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5087
  • Tommy Points: 372
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.

If you are proponent of tanking, then you would know that tanking is constantly playing against the odds, since no team can get a > 50% chance of landing the #1 pick.  The TWolves this year only had a 65% chance of landing in the top 3.

Offline mctyson

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5087
  • Tommy Points: 372
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)
Jeff Green#5 and Delonte(#24) for Ray Allen
Bradley(19)
Sullinger(21)
Tony Allen(25)
Perkins(27)
Glen Davis(35)
KO(13)

I am a huge Ainge supporter so I am biased but I would say that draft record is probably better than any GM in the league.  All of those guys have been starters/contributors, many for NBA contenders and even a champion.

Offline Granath

  • NCE
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2154
  • Tommy Points: 567
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?

In what world would this NOT be good? It would mean that:

1. Some of the youngsters continued to develop their games and probably at least one is a go-to guy.
2. The team would be good enough to attract a good FA who is looking to be that "one final piece.
Jaylen Brown will be an All Star in the next 5 years.

Offline mctyson

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5087
  • Tommy Points: 372
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.

It's a good thing that how the roster "looks" to you is a completely meaningless factor in how the team performs next year.

Offline JoeyAinge

  • The Green Kornet
  • Posts: 86
  • Tommy Points: 4
If Smart comes in with his ball handling much improved and can get to the basket with ease like he did in college. This team could be a 6-7 seed. Win their 1st round matchup and lose 2nd round. Just based on Smart offensively.

Sully will average close to 18-10
Avery probably 14ppg
Isiah 17ppg off the bench.
Zeller 6ppg 8Boards
Young 8ppg
Kelly 8ppg
Crowder 8ppg

With that Said... We need Smart to give us a good 21ppg to average 100pg

Don't think smart will do that. I see him averaging 14-6-2steals leaving us at 93ppg.

Leaving us at fighting for an 8 seed. We need a Smart or Young to have hug year to be sniffing 2nd round, I believe in them they have the talent , all we can do is hope.

Offline td450

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2330
  • Tommy Points: 254
I expect Ainge will be able to at least hit one or two more singles with trades to balance the roster. As long as he doesn't make wholesale changes, we will have some continuity, and we have the kind of roster where it is reasonable to expect significant player development.

Our biggest ace in the hole is the NJ picks, not ours. There is no way the C's tank with this group unless we have several major injuries. On the other hand, Brook Lopez has gone down with injuries in two of the past 4 years. If we are modestly lucky and it happens again, they will be in the bottom 6 or so teams in the league. They probably won't make the playoffs even if he is healthy.

There are at least two franchise players coming out next year in Simmons and Labissiere. We might just luck into one of them.

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
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?

In what world would this NOT be good? It would mean that:

1. Some of the youngsters continued to develop their games and probably at least one is a go-to guy.
2. The team would be good enough to attract a good FA who is looking to be that "one final piece.

That's the point. LC doesn't ask unloaded questions.
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.