C's ready to contend with a big move?

[CoachBo]

Let alone what us "pro-winning" fans would do, in the face of the fans who love "development" more than winning.

We aren't the Kings. It's time to win. Now.

You're right; we aren't the Kings. I would argue that the Kings, right now, have a better and more talented roster than the Celtics.

The other ironic thing is that the Kings are basically the epitome of what you want the Celtics to become. They've been trying to "win now" for years, trading for all-stars (Rudy Gay), locking up their All-NBA center (Cousins), drafting an "NBA-ready" prospect (Cauley-Stein), and hiring one of the more winning veteran coaches (Karl) in league history.

And I would tell you that I laugh at any assertion the Kings have a better roster. Gay is wildly overrated, Rondo is finished and Cauley-Stein has no offensive game. And Karl is one of the more something - one of the more divisive coaches in league history.

This current roster isn't going to develop into a champion. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever. The talent isn't there and it never will be. And y'all need to remind me again of the last draft-only champion. Lots of luck.

The elephant in the room y'all are ignoring is this: If we have such development potential, why can't Danny make a move? Any move? The answer is no one values these players like you do. It's going to take a combination of players and draft choices that will send this board into apoplexy, like the night Garnett was acquired, to get anything meaningful done.
The idea on this board that there's something wrong with trying to win is just bizarre.

[PhoSita]

The idea on this board that there's something wrong with trying to win is just bizarre.

I think it's easy to croak over and over like a frog in a bog that you want the Cs to "Win!  Win!  Win!  Now!"

Much more challenging to suggest plausible routes that the team can take from the current position, with a roster that " isn't going to develop into a champion. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever" to a place where it can contend, ideally for multiple years.

[GetLucky]

Let alone what us "pro-winning" fans would do, in the face of the fans who love "development" more than winning.

We aren't the Kings. It's time to win. Now.

You're right; we aren't the Kings. I would argue that the Kings, right now, have a better and more talented roster than the Celtics.

The other ironic thing is that the Kings are basically the epitome of what you want the Celtics to become. They've been trying to "win now" for years, trading for all-stars (Rudy Gay), locking up their All-NBA center (Cousins), drafting an "NBA-ready" prospect (Cauley-Stein), and hiring one of the more winning veteran coaches (Karl) in league history.

And I would tell you that I laugh at any assertion the Kings have a better roster. Gay is wildly overrated, Rondo is finished and Cauley-Stein has no offensive game. And Karl is one of the more something - one of the more divisive coaches in league history.

This current roster isn't going to develop into a champion. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever. The talent isn't there and it never will be. And y'all need to remind me again of the last draft-only champion. Lots of luck.

The elephant in the room y'all are ignoring is this: If we have such development potential, why can't Danny make a move? Any move? The answer is no one values these players like you do. It's going to take a combination of players and draft choices that will send this board into apoplexy, like the night Garnett was acquired, to get anything meaningful done.
The idea on this board that there's something wrong with trying to win is just bizarre.

See below:

EDIT2: My main point, lost amidst all of the specifics I tried to address, was that the "We. Must. Win. Now!" approach has potential negative consequences. The Kings, while also dealing with crazy circumstances, are also the potential downside of the "win now at all costs" approach. The Kings could be good, if they had better owners and GMs. The Celtics could have 25 championships, but Bias and Lewis died. In 10 years, people may look back and say, "The Celtics could have been a dynasty if they tanked for one year and added Ben Simmons. Those top-four conference finishes were great, and I really feel like they got the most from the roster. But no recent rings is disappointing." History is an unwelcoming host of "ifs", and there are a lot of potential "ifs" when a team pursues an ideal (ie: winning) so fiercely.

My point was that the Kings, who you used as the epitome of loser franchises, tried to execute the very plan that you are suggesting and failed. They were impatient and tried to "win now", and they failed. I'm just saying that you should be aware of the potential downside of the plan that lots of others are (correctly) deeming rash.

[Csfan1984]

I'd be happy with just moving a big. Too many PFs on the roster.

[hwangjini_1]

Let alone what us "pro-winning" fans would do, in the face of the fans who love "development" more than winning.

We aren't the Kings. It's time to win. Now.

You're right; we aren't the Kings. I would argue that the Kings, right now, have a better and more talented roster than the Celtics.

The other ironic thing is that the Kings are basically the epitome of what you want the Celtics to become. They've been trying to "win now" for years, trading for all-stars (Rudy Gay), locking up their All-NBA center (Cousins), drafting an "NBA-ready" prospect (Cauley-Stein), and hiring one of the more winning veteran coaches (Karl) in league history.

And I would tell you that I laugh at any assertion the Kings have a better roster. Gay is wildly overrated, Rondo is finished and Cauley-Stein has no offensive game. And Karl is one of the more something - one of the more divisive coaches in league history.

This current roster isn't going to develop into a champion. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever. The talent isn't there and it never will be. And y'all need to remind me again of the last draft-only champion. Lots of luck.

The elephant in the room y'all are ignoring is this: If we have such development potential, why can't Danny make a move? Any move? The answer is no one values these players like you do. It's going to take a combination of players and draft choices that will send this board into apoplexy, like the night Garnett was acquired, to get anything meaningful done.
The idea on this board that there's something wrong with trying to win is just bizarre.

ha, ha, ha...this is the sort of bet you always take. you're on cbo, i bet you anything in the world that the celtics get the talent to win a championship before the end of ever.  good luck winning THAT bet. ha, ha, ha.

[FreddieJ]

Let alone what us "pro-winning" fans would do, in the face of the fans who love "development" more than winning.

We aren't the Kings. It's time to win. Now.

You're right; we aren't the Kings. I would argue that the Kings, right now, have a better and more talented roster than the Celtics.

The other ironic thing is that the Kings are basically the epitome of what you want the Celtics to become. They've been trying to "win now" for years, trading for all-stars (Rudy Gay), locking up their All-NBA center (Cousins), drafting an "NBA-ready" prospect (Cauley-Stein), and hiring one of the more winning veteran coaches (Karl) in league history.

And I would tell you that I laugh at any assertion the Kings have a better roster. Gay is wildly overrated, Rondo is finished and Cauley-Stein has no offensive game. And Karl is one of the more something - one of the more divisive coaches in league history.

This current roster isn't going to develop into a champion. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever. The talent isn't there and it never will be. And y'all need to remind me again of the last draft-only champion. Lots of luck.

The elephant in the room y'all are ignoring is this: If we have such development potential, why can't Danny make a move? Any move? The answer is no one values these players like you do. It's going to take a combination of players and draft choices that will send this board into apoplexy, like the night Garnett was acquired, to get anything meaningful done.
The idea on this board that there's something wrong with trying to win is just bizarre.

See below:

EDIT2: My main point, lost amidst all of the specifics I tried to address, was that the "We. Must. Win. Now!" approach has potential negative consequences. The Kings, while also dealing with crazy circumstances, are also the potential downside of the "win now at all costs" approach. The Kings could be good, if they had better owners and GMs. The Celtics could have 25 championships, but Bias and Lewis died. In 10 years, people may look back and say, "The Celtics could have been a dynasty if they tanked for one year and added Ben Simmons. Those top-four conference finishes were great, and I really feel like they got the most from the roster. But no recent rings is disappointing." History is an unwelcoming host of "ifs", and there are a lot of potential "ifs" when a team pursues an ideal (ie: winning) so fiercely.

My point was that the Kings, who you used as the epitome of loser franchises, tried to execute the very plan that you are suggesting and failed. They were impatient and tried to "win now", and they failed. I'm just saying that you should be aware of the potential downside of the plan that lots of others are (correctly) deeming rash.

With all due respect to the Kings, we don't know if they've failed yet. Cousins and Gay have been together less than two years and they've had a terrible supporting cast and one of the worst benches in the league last year. Karl hasn't coached half a season in Sac. WCS hasn't stepped on the floor. Their supporting should be improved