Ian Thompson article about Celtics building franchise using old school values

[Celtics18]

It seems highly possible to me that a significant reason for bringing in Lee and Johnson is to aid in player development as opposed to being anti-player development moves.

Both of those guys bring some specific skills that could teach our young bigs a lot.  With Johnson, he's an accomplished interior defender who's been doing it a long time.  All three of our young big men could learn a lot about positioning and defensive coverage from him.

Lee, obviously, brings more experience as an offensive player.  In particular, he's a very good pick and roll player.  This is a skill that I think Kelly would benefit from improving upon.

I also think that Ainge and Stevens may share the philosophy that Olynyk, Zeller, and Sully will improve more by having to compete in practice for playing time than by simply being handed the minutes because there's no one else to give those minutes too.

I find it hard to buy the theory that the signings of Lee and Johnson signals that the Celtics are in essence simply giving up on our young bigs and moving on.  To me, that wouldn't make very much sense. 

[PhoSita]

I find it hard to buy the theory that the signings of Lee and Johnson signals that the Celtics are in essence simply giving up on our young bigs and moving on.  To me, that wouldn't make very much sense.

I wouldn't state it so strongly.

Rather, I think Ainge values having Lee and Amir's contracts as trade pieces, plus the improvement to the team in the short term, over the value of giving Sully / Olynyk / Zeller extended minutes and larger roles (plus whatever minutes might otherwise trickle down to Crowder, Mickey, etc).

There are valid reasons why he might value Lee and Amir in that way, but it does mean he's prioritizing other things ahead of player development.

[Celtics18]

I find it hard to buy the theory that the signings of Lee and Johnson signals that the Celtics are in essence simply giving up on our young bigs and moving on.  To me, that wouldn't make very much sense.

I wouldn't state it so strongly.

Rather, I think Ainge values having Lee and Amir's contracts as trade pieces, plus the improvement to the team in the short term, over the value of giving Sully / Olynyk / Zeller extended minutes and larger roles (plus whatever minutes might otherwise trickle down to Crowder, Mickey, etc).

There are valid reasons why he might value Lee and Amir in that way, but it does mean he's prioritizing other things ahead of player development.

I don't know.  I still think that player development has to be a top priority for a team in the Celtics situation.  I can't imagine that if Sully, Zeller, and Olynyk are all still on the roster next year that they won't be significant contributors in the rotation.

They probably won't be getting 30+ minutes each per game, but I expected them all to at least be in the twenties. 

I will be fairly disappointed, actually, if Kelly Olynyk doesn't get at least twenty-five minutes a game next season. 

I'll just add a link to this piece that has some Ainge quotes on his philosophy of developing young players:

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/celtics_nba/boston_celtics/2015/07/danny_ainge_veteran_presence_a_plus_for_celtics

[Monkhouse]

I find it hard to buy the theory that the signings of Lee and Johnson signals that the Celtics are in essence simply giving up on our young bigs and moving on.  To me, that wouldn't make very much sense.

I wouldn't state it so strongly.

Rather, I think Ainge values having Lee and Amir's contracts as trade pieces, plus the improvement to the team in the short term, over the value of giving Sully / Olynyk / Zeller extended minutes and larger roles (plus whatever minutes might otherwise trickle down to Crowder, Mickey, etc).

There are valid reasons why he might value Lee and Amir in that way, but it does mean he's prioritizing other things ahead of player development.

I don't know.  I still think that player development has to be a top priority for a team in the Celtics situation.  I can't imagine that if Sully, Zeller, and Olynyk are all still on the roster next year that they won't be significant contributors in the rotation.

They probably won't be getting 30+ minutes each per game, but I expected them all to at least be in the twenties. 

I will be fairly disappointed, actually, if Kelly Olynyk doesn't get at least twenty-five minutes a game next season. 

I'll just add a link to this piece that has some Ainge quotes on his philosophy of developing young players:

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/celtics_nba/boston_celtics/2015/07/danny_ainge_veteran_presence_a_plus_for_celtics

Kelly Olynyk is not that good enough to warrant 25 minutes or more. He did well towards the end of the regular season, but seemed completely inept in the playoffs which matters the most. I don't care how well a player did; if they completely choke where it matters most.

[ahonui06]

I find it hard to buy the theory that the signings of Lee and Johnson signals that the Celtics are in essence simply giving up on our young bigs and moving on.  To me, that wouldn't make very much sense.

I wouldn't state it so strongly.

Rather, I think Ainge values having Lee and Amir's contracts as trade pieces, plus the improvement to the team in the short term, over the value of giving Sully / Olynyk / Zeller extended minutes and larger roles (plus whatever minutes might otherwise trickle down to Crowder, Mickey, etc).

There are valid reasons why he might value Lee and Amir in that way, but it does mean he's prioritizing other things ahead of player development.

I don't know.  I still think that player development has to be a top priority for a team in the Celtics situation.  I can't imagine that if Sully, Zeller, and Olynyk are all still on the roster next year that they won't be significant contributors in the rotation.

They probably won't be getting 30+ minutes each per game, but I expected them all to at least be in the twenties. 

I will be fairly disappointed, actually, if Kelly Olynyk doesn't get at least twenty-five minutes a game next season. 

I'll just add a link to this piece that has some Ainge quotes on his philosophy of developing young players:

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/celtics_nba/boston_celtics/2015/07/danny_ainge_veteran_presence_a_plus_for_celtics

Kelly Olynyk is not that good enough to warrant 25 minutes or more. He did well towards the end of the regular season, but seemed completely inept in the playoffs which matters the most. I don't care how well a player did; if they completely choke where it matters most.

Really hard to imagine Olynyk getting 25 minutes a game with a stacked frontcourt right now.

Expect Amir & Lee to get 25-30 minutes per game with the remaining time split 3 ways between Olynyk, Sullinger and Zeller and maybe even Mickey in limited minutes.

[Celtics18]

I find it hard to buy the theory that the signings of Lee and Johnson signals that the Celtics are in essence simply giving up on our young bigs and moving on.  To me, that wouldn't make very much sense.

I wouldn't state it so strongly.

Rather, I think Ainge values having Lee and Amir's contracts as trade pieces, plus the improvement to the team in the short term, over the value of giving Sully / Olynyk / Zeller extended minutes and larger roles (plus whatever minutes might otherwise trickle down to Crowder, Mickey, etc).

There are valid reasons why he might value Lee and Amir in that way, but it does mean he's prioritizing other things ahead of player development.

I don't know.  I still think that player development has to be a top priority for a team in the Celtics situation.  I can't imagine that if Sully, Zeller, and Olynyk are all still on the roster next year that they won't be significant contributors in the rotation.

They probably won't be getting 30+ minutes each per game, but I expected them all to at least be in the twenties. 

I will be fairly disappointed, actually, if Kelly Olynyk doesn't get at least twenty-five minutes a game next season. 

I'll just add a link to this piece that has some Ainge quotes on his philosophy of developing young players:

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/celtics_nba/boston_celtics/2015/07/danny_ainge_veteran_presence_a_plus_for_celtics

Kelly Olynyk is not that good enough to warrant 25 minutes or more. He did well towards the end of the regular season, but seemed completely inept in the playoffs which matters the most. I don't care how well a player did; if they completely choke where it matters most.

He played great in game one, before slowly falling out of the rotation.  Overall, it was a bit of an inauspicious playoff debut for Kelly.  I think, though, that making a grand proclamation like that based on approximately 50 minutes of playoff action represents a way too hasty conclusion being drawn. 

[Casperian]

Lee and Amir are stop-gap solutions at PF and C (Evan Turner, likewise, is a placeholder on the wing).  They are also "trade assets" because of the dollar value of their contracts.  There are arguments to be made in favor of acquiring both, but those arguments have nothing to do with developing youth.

Yeah, but that doesn't change the fact that signing these two is not in the least counter-productive to developing youth, which your initial post seemed to claim. In fact, it is beneficial for young players to have a few experienced pros around who know how to play "the right way", as others have already pointed out.

I'm somewhere in the middle on this. To my mind the fact that Danny signed Lee and Amir tells us something about how he views KO and Sully...probably as guys whose development isn't critical. Or at best, as guys who aren't ready to be solid starters.

The fact that we haven't signed vets in the backcourt seems like more of a good sign. If Danny had signed a vet PG who'd take minutes away from Smart, I'd be bummed out.

Pretty much this.

[D.o.s.]

Lee and Amir are stop-gap solutions at PF and C (Evan Turner, likewise, is a placeholder on the wing).  They are also "trade assets" because of the dollar value of their contracts.  There are arguments to be made in favor of acquiring both, but those arguments have nothing to do with developing youth.

Yeah, but that doesn't change the fact that signing these two is not in the least counter-productive to developing youth, which your initial post seemed to claim. In fact, it is beneficial for young players to have a few experienced pros around who know how to play "the right way", as others have already pointed out.

I'm somewhere in the middle on this. To my mind the fact that Danny signed Lee and Amir tells us something about how he views KO and Sully...probably as guys whose development isn't critical. Or at best, as guys who aren't ready to be solid starters.

The fact that we haven't signed vets in the backcourt seems like more of a good sign. If Danny had signed a vet PG who'd take minutes away from Smart, I'd be bummed out.

Pretty much this.

Typically teams don't sign stopgaps who will impede on the NBA playing time of their prized rookies if they are focusing on a youth-oriented rebuild. Boris's point about the back court speaks to that.

It's pretty obvious Ainge views Smart as more essential to a good Celtics team than Olynyk or Sullinger -- fairly obvious, given that he's got the chance to be a much better player at an arguably more important position than either of our young bigs.

[PhoSita]

Yeah, but that doesn't change the fact that signing these two is not in the least counter-productive to developing youth, which your initial post seemed to claim.

I mean, I think I've actually gone to some length in this thread to explain why, but, well . . . .





As to the above point about the backcourt, I don't think Danny needed to sign stop-gap veterans there because we already have two -- Bradley and Turner.

There's a good chance our starting lineup will feature four stop-gap veterans in Bradley, Turner, Lee, and Amir, and I expect all of them to be playing at least 26-28 minutes per game.

[D.o.s.]

To be fair, Bradley wasn't signed as a stopgap at the time -- he was given a deal to be the starting point guard on a playoff/ECF at best bound team.

There's no excuse for Evan Turner. Ever.

[Rondo9]

I'm somewhere in the middle on this. To my mind the fact that Danny signed Lee and Amir tells us something about how he views KO and Sully...probably as guys whose development isn't critical. Or at best, as guys who aren't ready to be solid starters.

The fact that we haven't signed vets in the backcourt seems like more of a good sign. If Danny had signed a vet PG who'd take minutes away from Smart, I'd be bummed out.

I agree, the moves indicate a lack of faith in Sully / KO / Zeller becoming starting caliber players.  A lack of faith I tend to share, to be honest, but I'd still rather start Sully / KO in the hopes of showcasing them or a trade (or on the off chance they surprise us) and then give the backup minutes to Mickey and / or some young guy we pick up.

Personally though It seems that Lee was acquired because he's a better asset than Wallace rather than the lack of faith in Sullinger and Olynyk.


With Amir well the Celtics needed a rim protector and Amir just happened to be there.

First part:  Danny is smart enough to know the consequences of his moves, though.  Yes, Lee is a better asset than Wallace, though I think how much better is probably exaggerated around here.  Danny must know Lee is likely to earn significant playing time that would otherwise go to younger players.  If you think Lee is a really valuable player who may have a future here, that might not seem like a negative to you.  That's not my perspective.

Second part:  Yes, Amir has a skillset that helps the team win in the here and now.  The short term contract (very likely a one year rental) suggests he will probably be gone after this season.  The value that Amir brings to the table is short term, unless Danny uses his contract to acquire a longer term asset.

Lee is way better player than Wallace and is a better asset. While Amir does help them in the short term, Danny does remain flexible for deals, but if he likes Amir, then he could keep him for one more year while maintaining flexibility.

[crimson_stallion]

I'm somewhere in the middle on this. To my mind the fact that Danny signed Lee and Amir tells us something about how he views KO and Sully...probably as guys whose development isn't critical. Or at best, as guys who aren't ready to be solid starters.

The fact that we haven't signed vets in the backcourt seems like more of a good sign. If Danny had signed a vet PG who'd take minutes away from Smart, I'd be bummed out.

I agree, the moves indicate a lack of faith in Sully / KO / Zeller becoming starting caliber players.  A lack of faith I tend to share, to be honest, but I'd still rather start Sully / KO in the hopes of showcasing them or a trade (or on the off chance they surprise us) and then give the backup minutes to Mickey and / or some young guy we pick up.

Personally though It seems that Lee was acquired because he's a better asset than Wallace rather than the lack of faith in Sullinger and Olynyk.


With Amir well the Celtics needed a rim protector and Amir just happened to be there.

First part:  Danny is smart enough to know the consequences of his moves, though.  Yes, Lee is a better asset than Wallace, though I think how much better is probably exaggerated around here.  Danny must know Lee is likely to earn significant playing time that would otherwise go to younger players.  If you think Lee is a really valuable player who may have a future here, that might not seem like a negative to you.  That's not my perspective.

Second part:  Yes, Amir has a skillset that helps the team win in the here and now.  The short term contract (very likely a one year rental) suggests he will probably be gone after this season.  The value that Amir brings to the table is short term, unless Danny uses his contract to acquire a longer term asset.

Lee is way better player than Wallace and is a better asset. While Amir does help them in the short term, Danny does remain flexible for deals, but if he likes Amir, then he could keep him for one more year while maintaining flexibility.

Yeah, honestly I think people are reading in to the moves too much.

Danny has a "you can never have too much talent" mindset.  His approach is (and always has been) to add as much talent as you possible can, and deal work the rest out later.

In free agency he signed Amir because:
1) His attitude (work ethic, motor, hustle, toughness) is Celtic personified
2) He can do a bit of everything on the court, so and Brad is all about lineup flexibility
3) He had cap space to burn, so he may as well add somebody who makes the team better
4) Sully is a free agent after this season and bass was going, so adding big man depth made sense

I didn't (by any means) see it as a sign that Danny lacks faith in all of our other bigs - there's a reason why only two years on Johnson's deal are reportedly guaranteed.  He adds depth over the next year or two, and after that we aren't obligated to keep him if an upgrade becomes available. 

As for the Lee trade, that's an easy one.  Danny is always looking for deals where he can add something for nothing.  For Boston Wallace was less than nothing - we were paying $10M to a guy to sit on the end of the bench and cheer.  We were able to trade him for another guy (on a similarly big, expiring contract) who will actually contribute -and quite a bit, too.  It's a no brainer deal that Danny couldn't say no to.

Just look at the Miami trade - we had no use for Dragic, but Miami had to get rid of him so they could bring their salary down (for luxury tax purposes) so Danny saw an opportunity to get gifted a free 2nd round pick, and jumped on it.

Not every trade has a distinct long term goal, often it's just a matter of gaining free assets.

Honestly, I'm not even convinced that Amir and Lee will start next season.  I think there's a very real possibility that they might start Sully and Zeller, or Olynyk and Zeller, or Sully and Olynyk - I think it's very possible that either Lee or Amir (or even both) may come off the bench.

Brad is a guy who assigns roles based one:
a) Who earns them
b) Which lineups give the greatest advantage

If Stevens feels that Lee's skills are needed more with the second unit, then he'll bring Lee off the bench.  If he feels he fits perfectly with the starting group, he'll start him. 

Same reason why Thomas (quite possibly our best player) is coming off the bench.  All about lineups and matchups.

[PhoSita]

To be fair, Bradley wasn't signed as a stopgap at the time -- he was given a deal to be the starting point guard on a playoff/ECF at best bound team.

There's no excuse for Evan Turner. Ever.

Did we really re-sign Bradley to be a starting point guard?

I think Bradley was signed as a decent, relatively young off-guard who might still have some upside that would make his deal a bargain.  That's Danny's MO.

My point in calling Bradley and Turner stop-gaps is that they've both been in the league 5+ years, they've both shown everything they can do when given a substantial starting role, and neither is above average.  Neither is a long term answer at the 1, 2, or 3, and their value is as highly as it is ever likely to be.

[crimson_stallion]

To be fair, Bradley wasn't signed as a stopgap at the time -- he was given a deal to be the starting point guard on a playoff/ECF at best bound team.

There's no excuse for Evan Turner. Ever.

Did we really re-sign Bradley to be a starting point guard?

I think Bradley was signed as a decent, relatively young off-guard who might still have some upside that would make his deal a bargain.  That's Danny's MO.

My point in calling Bradley and Turner stop-gaps is that they've both been in the league 5+ years, they've both shown everything they can do when given a substantial starting role, and neither is above average.  Neither is a long term answer at the 1, 2, or 3, and their value is as highly as it is ever likely to be.

I'm not sure I agree with that analysis, in all honesty. 

I would consider Bradley an above average player, I believe he could be a long term solution at the 2 spot, and I think he still has untapped potential.

There have been many guys in the league who, even in their mid to late 20's, have continued to develop skills and add to their game.  Brandon Bass and Paul Milsap are just two examples. 

I don't think Bradley will ever be an All-Star, but I think that every year he's going to make small improvements to his game. I think he'll continue to improve as a passer and ball handler (which I feel he has done over the past couple of years) and I think he'll continue to develop as a scorer (which I also feel he's done over the past couple of years).

Do I believe Bradley is irreplacable?  No. 
Do I believe Bradley will ever be a star?  No.

Do I acknowledge that his game has significant weaknesses?  Absolutely.  He's extremely streaky on offense, and his passing and ball handling skills are below average for a guard.

Despite this however, I still believe that he is a good player, that his intangibles (athleticism, work ethic, motor, hustle, team-first attitude) make him valuable beyond what the stat sheet suggests, and that he's generally the most under-appreciated player on the Celtics roster.

Everybody complains about guys like Sully - his lack of work ethic, lack of drive, apparent lack of interest in improving and being the best player he can be.  You can never ever say those things about Avery Bradley.  He brings it every night.

As for Turner, he's an interesting player.  On one hand he can be incredibly frustrating - he's decision making can be horrendous (in terms of both shot selection and tendancy to be a turnover machine) but he's also the only guy we have at the wing positions who can do all of the above:

a) Pass
b) Handle the ball
c) Rebound a decent rate
d) Score with some degree of consistency
e) Get to the basket

His defense improved a lot last year too.

The Small Forward / Wing position is arguably our least versatile right now, because the other guy who play that spot for us are really pretty one dimensional.  Jerebko is a pure 3+D guy, Crowder is just a pure D and energy guy, Hunter and Young aren't yet ready for NBA minutes.  That really leaves Turner as (ironically enough) the most complete and versatile player we have at the SF spot.

In fact a Turner is, in a lot of ways, like a swingman version of Rajon Rondo.  He can go on a scoring tear on any night, can get a triple double on any night, will hit huge clutch shots when you least expect it - but then the next night he'll go 2-10 from the field with 7 turnovers.

I don't mind keeping Turner on the team because he's cheap, he can create offense, and he can play in a point-forward role when we don't have a pure PG on the court. 

I'm by no means attached to Turner (if we had a chance to trade him and score an upgrade, I'd be all in) but I also wouldn't push to trade him out just for the sake of it.

Plus I think he's on an expiring contract anyway, so it's not like he's going to hurt the team's long term plans. 

One thing I do know - if Turner can EVER develop a reasonably consistent three point shot (even just 34%-35% from three) he'd immediately become a very good player.

[Celtics18]

Yeah, but that doesn't change the fact that signing these two is not in the least counter-productive to developing youth, which your initial post seemed to claim.

I mean, I think I've actually gone to some length in this thread to explain why, but, well . . . .





As to the above point about the backcourt, I don't think Danny needed to sign stop-gap veterans there because we already have two -- Bradley and Turner.

There's a good chance our starting lineup will feature four stop-gap veterans in Bradley, Turner, Lee, and Amir, and I expect all of them to be playing at least 26-28 minutes per game.

Others have gone to some length to explain why we believe that the signings of Amir and Lee don't necessarily indicate a lack of prioritizing youth development.

Just because you've attempted to argue your position at length doesn't make it the correct position.