Author Topic: There's a chance that we never sign/trade for the all-star we're looking for  (Read 5059 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BDeCosta26

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1314
  • Tommy Points: 232
Well, we may never sign/trade for one. But one thing that has been proven pretty certain in the NBA is that major star players get traded, normally once every year or two. Look at it this way, in the past like 5-7 years we've seen Kevin Love, Carmelo Anthony, James Harden, Dwight Howard, Deron Williams (when he was still a star) Ray Allen, Kevin Garnett and lesser names like Ty Lawson, Rajon Rondo, Enes Kanter, Eric Bledsoe and the like, be traded.

Star players get traded with a fair amount of frequency in the NBA. The key is to put yourself in the best possible position to make a trade when one becomes available to you, which I think we've done better than almost anyone in the league.

I think a lot of what happens from here on depends on Our young guys and the Brooklyn picks. If we get two top 12 picks (a distinct possibility, with a solid chance of one Top-6/7 pick) next summer, I think we'll make a serious move some time shortly afterwards.

Offline kheldar52077

  • The Green Kornet
  • Posts: 75
  • Tommy Points: 8
You'll never know Ainge might sign Kobe next year.  ;D

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
^But my hot take is fresh and i must share it now!

There's an equal chance we never draft one, either. Particularly if we keep picking at the back half of the lottery.

Also, in order for the Dubs to win a championship they traded away their best player (and fan favorite) for an injured former #1 overall draft pick, signed one of the most league-appreciated defenders (who would later win NBA Finals MVP) in a last minute burst of creative bookkeeping, and tanked the last half of a season in order to keep the rights to their lottery pick. My suspicion is that if you pitched the Warriors model under that definition it would be less palatable to some on here.
To be precise there is no guaranteed method of acquiring a star in general.

This is true not only for the C's but for all teams.

Exactly. As far as can be proved, there's no basketball deity serving out portions of parity and lottery favor to each team on their own merits, and it may not be wise to assume that this is the case.

We can grow the team organically and wind up the Dubs, but it's just as likely we wind up the T-Wolves.
No, because Lucky the Leprechaun.
Basketball is a sport played by two teams of 5 players with a ball for 48 mins and the C's win at the end.

Good point. I stand corrected.
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.

Offline greece66

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7395
  • Tommy Points: 1342
  • Head Paperboy at Greenville
^But my hot take is fresh and i must share it now!

There's an equal chance we never draft one, either. Particularly if we keep picking at the back half of the lottery.

Also, in order for the Dubs to win a championship they traded away their best player (and fan favorite) for an injured former #1 overall draft pick, signed one of the most league-appreciated defenders (who would later win NBA Finals MVP) in a last minute burst of creative bookkeeping, and tanked the last half of a season in order to keep the rights to their lottery pick. My suspicion is that if you pitched the Warriors model under that definition it would be less palatable to some on here.
To be precise there is no guaranteed method of acquiring a star in general.

This is true not only for the C's but for all teams.

Exactly. As far as can be proved, there's no basketball deity serving out portions of parity and lottery favor to each team on their own merits, and it may not be wise to assume that this is the case.

We can grow the team organically and wind up the Dubs, but it's just as likely we wind up the T-Wolves.
No, because Lucky the Leprechaun.
Basketball is a sport played by two teams of 5 players with a ball for 48 mins and the C's win at the end.

Good point. I stand corrected.
Thank you for this enlightening rational exchange. It is great to reach scientific conclusions after a careful objective scrutiny of the facts at hand.

Offline jayk009

  • Brad Stevens
  • Posts: 234
  • Tommy Points: 29
One thing that is an advantage for us...we are infinitley more attractive as a free agency destination vs. a team like philly or minnesota. Alot more free agents are likely to think they are the missing piece to us winning a title...Heck we are probably a 40-50 win team even without a true all-star...and another benefit of trying our best to win is that instills a winning culture with our existing players and also gives that perception to potential free agents. I strongly believe we would have landed Kevin Love had he decided not to re-sign with Cleveland.

But you know..free agency will actually be one of our best friends...we just have to make sure we spend it on the right player...this is why I hope we will never see it used on a okay but not game changing player like Tobias Harris like alot of Celtics fans wanted...I trust Danny Ainge...

Offline greece66

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7395
  • Tommy Points: 1342
  • Head Paperboy at Greenville
You'll never know Ainge might sign Kobe next year.  ;D
If the contract is for 3 mill/1 year, I will applaud the decision.

Offline Eric M VAN

  • Derrick White
  • Posts: 279
  • Tommy Points: 61
  • No no no, not THAT "Eric M Van".
"Because there are no fours."
-- Antoine Walker when asked why he shoots so many threes

"We're going to turn this team around 360 degrees."
-Jason Kidd


Offline fairweatherfan

  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20738
  • Tommy Points: 2365
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
Over a long enough timeline, the odds of not acquiring an All-Star drop to zero.

Offline oldtype

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1677
  • Tommy Points: 143
We'll be contenders again sooner or later, but we do need to be aware of the timescales involved. It could easily take another 4-5 years from today until we're relevant, and that's perfectly normal. Look at teams like the Wizards and the T-Wolves and how long it's been since they've mattered.

If your goal isn't just contending but winning a title, the timescale expands even further. You could do a really good job putting together a contender and easily never win anything: OKC is probably never winning a title with their current core. Neither is Houston. The Celtics have been incredibly lucky in that regard, but winning a title in general is a very unlikely event. We could very easily not see Banner 18 for the majority of our lifetimes, but that's what makes winning all the more sweet.


Great words from a great man

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7489
  • Tommy Points: 741
We'll be contenders again sooner or later, but we do need to be aware of the timescales involved. It could easily take another 4-5 years from today until we're relevant, and that's perfectly normal. Look at teams like the Wizards and the T-Wolves and how long it's been since they've mattered.

If your goal isn't just contending but winning a title, the timescale expands even further. You could do a really good job putting together a contender and easily never win anything: OKC is probably never winning a title with their current core. Neither is Houston. The Celtics have been incredibly lucky in that regard, but winning a title in general is a very unlikely event. We could very easily not see Banner 18 for the majority of our lifetimes, but that's what makes winning all the more sweet.
Yeah, this is all common sense, I think. I like the direction of the rebuild because Ainge seems to be in control of everything he can be in control of and letting the rest sort itself out, giving the team plenty of opportunities to be in the mix for whatever situation arises.
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008

Offline Hemingway

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1181
  • Tommy Points: 123
Yes, we could wait forever I guess. But we could also find a star with a 2nd round pick or something else positive too.

Its realy more about when not if. Assuming ball goes on forever, we will have another star. Just a question of when. IMO we have some really nice complimentary pieces and a potential star already, so I really hope we get a Melo or Cousins soon. 

Offline GreenWarrior

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3275
  • Tommy Points: 228
"There's a chance that we never sign/trade for the all-star we're looking for"

the very reason we should have been tanking. rebuilding the team with late 1st and 2nd rnd. picks and hoping a star rises from that is like taking 4 right turns to make a left turn.

There's no guarantee that we'd draft one if we tanked, either

of course there's no guarantees of anything.

I just don't see how or why Celtics fans refuse to acknowledge that building a team with late 1st and 2nd rnd. picks is way more of a gamble than drafting players in the lottery.

these guys are ranked higher for a reason.

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182
If a trade for a big star doesn't come along in the next 4 or 5 years, and none of the picks we own turns into a top 10 pick that yields a star prospect, I think Danny will probably retire (or just move on) and we'll have to start this thing over again with Mike Zarren or somebody else at the helm.
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Offline td450

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2330
  • Tommy Points: 254
I think Danny has done a masterful job of splitting the baby. Free agents want a team to be moving into a position to contend. We now have a super young, defensive oriented team with no stars, loads of cap space and a great young coach that should win 45 games or more next year. With a normal amount of player development over the next year, one strong free agent signing could easily put us over 50 wins and into contention mode.

We have also managed to sub out the unpleasant business of tanking to the Nets. They are one Brook Lopez (or even Jarret Jack) injury away from a total collapse. If this happens in any of the next 3 years, we could be looking at the kind of lottery pick that can bring in a star.

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7489
  • Tommy Points: 741
I think Danny has done a masterful job of splitting the baby. Free agents want a team to be moving into a position to contend. We now have a super young, defensive oriented team with no stars, loads of cap space and a great young coach that should win 45 games or more next year. With a normal amount of player development over the next year, one strong free agent signing could easily put us over 50 wins and into contention mode.

We have also managed to sub out the unpleasant business of tanking to the Nets. They are one Brook Lopez (or even Jarret Jack) injury away from a total collapse. If this happens in any of the next 3 years, we could be looking at the kind of lottery pick that can bring in a star.
It does seem like we're positioned well. I think Danny's strategy is all about controlling as much as much as possible while understanding what they can't control. They can't control when a star player becomes available (its fruitless to chase one that isn't) and we can't turn a role player into a star (giving big money to rotation guyswon't do anything) but as long as they draft high caliber guys and maintain flexibility, they'll be in a good position to make a move when the things they can't control do align, either in the draft or with a star on another team.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2015, 02:42:50 PM by Big333223 »
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008