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

[Who]

I think the way the East is shaping up, we'll have:

- Only 1 top team in the conference
- 3-4 good teams. Teams that can win 47-52 games. Good but not world beaters. Atlanta was in that top tier last year but losing Carroll will drop them back. Then there is Chicago who have done nothing to get better. Washington trying to hold steady. Toronto shuffling the deck.
- a cluster of mediocre teams competing for final 2-3 playoff spots

I think East is so pathetic and so lacking in top quality teams that every team that does not have to face Cleveland in the first round has a realistic chance of beating their opponent and advancing to the 2nd round.

This does not mean those borderline playoff teams are good. It means the Eastern Conference sucks. None of these borderline playoff teams in the East would beat any of the top 8 seeds in the West.

[Who]

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

To me, it is largely irrelevant how many games Boston wins next year.

The goal is to develop star talent. If Boston is winning games because Smart or Sully (or someone else) makes a major jump and shows themselves to be an All-Star caliber talent ... that is a win. Whether Boston wins 30 games or 47 games.

If Boston wins 45 games but does it on the backs on role players who range between steady starter and above average bench players ... with no young players making a big leap forward and displaying All-Star talent ... than that means very little to me. Whether that is (1) 35 wins and miss the playoffs or (2) 45 wins lose in the first round or scratch and claw their way into the 2nd round amounts.

To me, it's not about the immediate result.

It is about individual players proving themselves to be a top level talent. That is the goal.

[Scintan]

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.

Not all the picks were in the > 10 range.  Jeff Green was taken at #5 in 2007.  He went elsewhere was part of the Allen deal, which actually helps make the point about drafting high.  They also had the #7 pick in 2006, but blew that one by trading it for Telfair.

5th place in the woeful East for your all-star team of draft picks is not pretty dang good, at all.  It's sad.  And, again, that's not meant as a mark against Ainge.  It just highlights the problem with drafting outside the lottery.