Author Topic: Perhaps the Celtics don't need fireworks?  (Read 7180 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Perhaps the Celtics don't need fireworks?
« Reply #30 on: August 23, 2016, 06:19:11 PM »

Online hpantazo

  • Kevin McHale
  • ************************
  • Posts: 24882
  • Tommy Points: 2700
Ainge got Thomas at a ridiculous value. Without Thomas we'd be an atrocious team with no Horford. Stevens is good I'm sure but it's Danny waaaay more.


Agreed. Thomas and Crowder both.

Let's not forget as well that Ainge got Stevens and locked him up long term when he was a nobody and most of us on here thought he hired a coach to tank and was insane to give him such a long term deal when we saw who he hired.

Re: Perhaps the Celtics don't need fireworks?
« Reply #31 on: August 23, 2016, 10:07:45 PM »

Offline ThePaintedArea

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 763
  • Tommy Points: 111
I think the recent rise in the salary cap has distracted from the fact that the new CBA rewards teams that build through the draft. The reason why is that in the new CBA, going over the cap in consecutive years to pay multiple mature, veteran superstars (what the C's did with Garnett, Pierce, and Allen) is prohibitively expensive with the luxury tax. It's just too expensive to build a super team AND have good role players, even as this fact has been temporarily disrupted by the jump in the cap.

In the years ahead you will need young players, especially young superstars. Jaylen Brown will make $4.7m this year (about half of what Matthew Dellavedova will make). By the time Brown has three years of experience and development under his belt, he will still only make about $6.5m. If Brown turns into a superstar, because of how the salary cap works you can sign him to a max contract for 25% of the cap, rather than the 30-35% for an older player (like Horford).

You have two more shots at this with the 2017 and 2018 Brooklyn picks. Roll the dice and see if you can come up with 1-3 superstars, any of which will be on reasonable money. That sounds like fireworks to me.

I'm persuaded. Keep the picks. Build a dynasty, a perennial contender.

Re: Perhaps the Celtics don't need fireworks?
« Reply #32 on: August 23, 2016, 10:34:43 PM »

Offline chambers

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7482
  • Tommy Points: 943
  • Boston Celtics= Championships, nothing less.
I think the recent rise in the salary cap has distracted from the fact that the new CBA rewards teams that build through the draft. The reason why is that in the new CBA, going over the cap in consecutive years to pay multiple mature, veteran superstars (what the C's did with Garnett, Pierce, and Allen) is prohibitively expensive with the luxury tax. It's just too expensive to build a super team AND have good role players, even as this fact has been temporarily disrupted by the jump in the cap.

In the years ahead you will need young players, especially young superstars. Jaylen Brown will make $4.7m this year (about half of what Matthew Dellavedova will make). By the time Brown has three years of experience and development under his belt, he will still only make about $6.5m. If Brown turns into a superstar, because of how the salary cap works you can sign him to a max contract for 25% of the cap, rather than the 30-35% for an older player (like Horford).

You have two more shots at this with the 2017 and 2018 Brooklyn picks. Roll the dice and see if you can come up with 1-3 superstars, any of which will be on reasonable money. That sounds like fireworks to me.

I'm persuaded. Keep the picks. Build a dynasty, a perennial contender.

this is what we are doing. We are just also trying to acquire some stars via free agency and trade. We haven't given up any BRK picks yet, so obviously Danny is only giving them up for top 10 talent.

We have fruit in two baskets.
"We are lucky we have a very patient GM that isn't willing to settle for being good and coming close. He wants to win a championship and we have the potential to get there still with our roster and assets."

quoting 'Greg B' on RealGM after 2017 trade deadline.
Read that last line again. One more time.

Re: Perhaps the Celtics don't need fireworks?
« Reply #33 on: August 24, 2016, 02:22:20 PM »

Offline CelticPride2016

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 776
  • Tommy Points: 247
Ainge got Thomas at a ridiculous value. Without Thomas we'd be an atrocious team with no Horford. Stevens is good I'm sure but it's Danny waaaay more.


Agreed. Thomas and Crowder both.

Let's not forget as well that Ainge got Stevens and locked him up long term when he was a nobody and most of us on here thought he hired a coach to tank and was insane to give him such a long term deal when we saw who he hired.

This makes sense. Danny Ainge has been on an amazing roll for several years. We should not have become this good so quickly.

Stevens forced Danny's hands into becoming a buyer by proving the ability to win games with mediocre talent. Stevens was coaching wins out of teams led by Jordan Crawford, Evan Turner and Phil Pressey.

The worst part for me was actually right after the Rondo trade. That was my low point during the rebuild. I hated Jameer Nelson. I lost faith in both Danny and Brad who was playing five bigs including Brandan Wright. Crowder seemed to be a throw-in. Jameer Nelson almost made me quit basketball.

Exactly two months later we had Isaiah and the rest was history.

All those little Ainge moves were so incredible, I can't remember them. He did a little thing there with Cleveland, a little thing over there, and before you knew it, the rebuild had only taken a year and a half.

Re: Perhaps the Celtics don't need fireworks?
« Reply #34 on: August 24, 2016, 05:23:30 PM »

Offline walker834

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5240
  • Tommy Points: 238
I don't think we need fireworks.  A deal may be made but our roster is set for this year. We have 15 with Yab and Zizic stashed.  Nader in the d-league.  Bentil and Young most likely going to be waived or reassigned as well.   This stuff really isn't rocket science like people like to make it sound.  We have the nets picks coming up. This last draft was a bit much which caused some overflow but we  have room to cut guys like Zeller going forward. Even jerebko. If deals are out there they can be made but drafting the next couple years with those nets picks and letting our young players improve is a viable option as well.  I think a deal will be made more than likely but it's not necessary. The rising cap also gives us the ability to sign free agents.  We are going to have the same room to do  that next year as we did this year.

I think there were some questions how Ainge was going to deal with all the picks we had this year.   I don't think we have those same issues going forward.  We can just draft and improve our roster that way.  We also have cap room.  There have to be players out there worth making deals for.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2016, 05:42:14 PM by walker834 »

Re: Perhaps the Celtics don't need fireworks?
« Reply #35 on: August 24, 2016, 06:00:44 PM »

Offline Surferdad

  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14456
  • Tommy Points: 972
  • "He fiddles...and diddles..."
I don't think we need fireworks.  A deal may be made but our roster is set for this year. We have 15 with Yab and Zizic stashed.  Nader in the d-league.  Bentil and Young most likely going to be waived or reassigned as well.   This stuff really isn't rocket science like people like to make it sound.  We have the nets picks coming up. This last draft was a bit much which caused some overflow but we  have room to cut guys like Zeller going forward. Even jerebko. If deals are out there they can be made but drafting the next couple years with those nets picks and letting our young players improve is a viable option as well.  I think a deal will be made more than likely but it's not necessary. The rising cap also gives us the ability to sign free agents.  We are going to have the same room to do  that next year as we did this year.

I think there were some questions how Ainge was going to deal with all the picks we had this year.   I don't think we have those same issues going forward.  We can just draft and improve our roster that way.  We also have cap room.  There have to be players out there worth making deals for.
The best post of the off-season, walker.  TP.  The roster is fine now, without a trade.  Remember how we were wondering what Ainge would do with all those picks?  Well, he kept them and used them all (I think, somebody correct me if I'm wrong).  Next year, more picks and I'm sure he'll find a way once again.  Maybe there will be a trade, but maybe not.  Going young with cost-controlled players is going to be really valuable as a way to save cap space for free agents.  If a few of our young bigs develop more quickly, then indeed Zeller and Jerebko may be expendable.

Re: Perhaps the Celtics don't need fireworks?
« Reply #36 on: August 24, 2016, 06:15:09 PM »

Offline walker834

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5240
  • Tommy Points: 238
Zeller has one year guaranteed and Ainge is thinking ahead that's the whole thing. We don't have to cut him either.  Amir is set up the same way and a few others.   That's more what I meant.  Sully and Turner were the two guys that went elsewhere this year to make room and we can just continue to do that.  I think if a deal comes along that improves us Ainge would make it, but it's not the end all be all.  We'll remain aggressive I know that.

Re: Perhaps the Celtics don't need fireworks?
« Reply #37 on: August 25, 2016, 06:23:10 PM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7489
  • Tommy Points: 741
I don't think we need fireworks.  A deal may be made but our roster is set for this year. We have 15 with Yab and Zizic stashed.  Nader in the d-league.  Bentil and Young most likely going to be waived or reassigned as well.   This stuff really isn't rocket science like people like to make it sound.  We have the nets picks coming up. This last draft was a bit much which caused some overflow but we  have room to cut guys like Zeller going forward. Even jerebko. If deals are out there they can be made but drafting the next couple years with those nets picks and letting our young players improve is a viable option as well.  I think a deal will be made more than likely but it's not necessary. The rising cap also gives us the ability to sign free agents.  We are going to have the same room to do  that next year as we did this year.

I think there were some questions how Ainge was going to deal with all the picks we had this year.   I don't think we have those same issues going forward.  We can just draft and improve our roster that way.  We also have cap room.  There have to be players out there worth making deals for.
The best post of the off-season, walker.  TP.  The roster is fine now, without a trade.  Remember how we were wondering what Ainge would do with all those picks?  Well, he kept them and used them all (I think, somebody correct me if I'm wrong).  Next year, more picks and I'm sure he'll find a way once again.  Maybe there will be a trade, but maybe not.  Going young with cost-controlled players is going to be really valuable as a way to save cap space for free agents.  If a few of our young bigs develop more quickly, then indeed Zeller and Jerebko may be expendable.
There are still roster problems to be addressed. Waiving Young and Bentil gets the team to 15 but then they still have the rights to Bentil, Nader, Yabusele, and Zizic plus another first round pick coming next season. That's 5 more players coming in next year and no roster spots for them unless you let someone of quality walk away for nothing.

And before we even get there, having 3-4 players on the roster who will never seen real minutes seems a bit of a waste if it would be possible to turn them into 1 single player that could earn minutes and actually help the team.
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008

Re: Perhaps the Celtics don't need fireworks?
« Reply #38 on: August 25, 2016, 09:20:18 PM »

Offline CelticPride2016

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 776
  • Tommy Points: 247
Zeller has one year guaranteed and Ainge is thinking ahead that's the whole thing. We don't have to cut him either.  Amir is set up the same way and a few others.   That's more what I meant.  Sully and Turner were the two guys that went elsewhere this year to make room and we can just continue to do that.  I think if a deal comes along that improves us Ainge would make it, but it's not the end all be all.  We'll remain aggressive I know that.

Zeller doesn't mind sitting on the bench. He knows his place in the league. He is building up his resume for what could be a fifteen year journeyman career. He might even find a niche. Mickey might still be too raw. People talk about Crowder at PF, but I think any one injury to Olynyk, Amir or Johnson would give Zeller an opening, as Olynyk is still unproven for center defense and the other two guys probably feel like they are PFs and not centers.

Of course the league has changed, so the big center seems to be going extinct, although you still need guys to defend Cousins, Mozgov, Deandre Jordan centers.

That is one potential hole I am looking to see if it exists whether or not Horford and Amir are good enough to neutralize big centers. Maybe Olynyk can do it, although it seems unlikely. I think teams need a big Perk kind of guy even if they sit a lot on the bench collecting dust.

Yes, Danny has become somewhat predictable with player contracts running out. They all are given a handshake and so long, nice knowing you, from Humphries to Bass to Turner and Sully.

I think Zeller is probably trade filler. He seems to have a definite ceiling and it isn't high. He is what he is.

Olynyk seems to be as good as Zeller at defending big centers. That didn't take long. It's not saying much. Zeller could become a niche because he does have a good ceiling for offense.

I hear RJ Hunter knows he is on the clock. I think this is good. Players shouldn't expect two or three years of babysitting waiting for them to produce. Young might not be able to do anything to make the final cut.

Hunter might. He has a skeleton of an all-around two-way game. He is not a one-trick pony like James Young.

Barring trades, I count twelve guys who are guaranteed to make the team.

Bradley
Brown
Crowder
Green
Horford
Jerebko
Johnson
Olynyk
Rozier
Smart
Thomas
Zeller

Our roster is incredible. Danny could win GM of the Year.

That only leaves three openings. The competition will be intense for the final slots.

There could be a lot of factors. Maybe both Rozier and Smart look good at pg and then it might be rationalized Jackson isn't needed.

Hunter could show vast improvement, but with Smart, Bradley, Green and Brown, is there room for another shooting guard?

I have no clue. Maybe someone understands all the factors and contracts and can guess closely what Ainge will do. I think if he could pull off a two or three players for one deal, that would be a good idea. It'd be shame to give up on a good albeit unproven player or not at least try to work them into a trade instead of getting nothing.

I guess we have only two more months to wait.

Danny has overflowed the roster. I guess that's okay because as Walker says, he sets it up so he can mostly let contracts run out. I guess Danny likes to buy Brad and himself some time to make sure they don't cut the wrong guy.

I suppose if Hunter is on the bubble, so should Jordan Mickey. James Young at this point is a distraction. It's way past the point of awkward. Sometimes these guys are not good at basketball and should never have been drafted to begin with. The one and out for the draft has truly turned it into a crap shoot. I can see why Danny is working overtime trying to figure out which young players to roll the dice with.

Re: Perhaps the Celtics don't need fireworks?
« Reply #39 on: August 25, 2016, 09:29:25 PM »

Offline walker834

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5240
  • Tommy Points: 238
Hey Celticspride thanks for that post.  I was going to make a similar one.  I was thinking about who will be active and who won't be,  who is still going to spend time in the d-league etc.  I agree our roster is set up really well this year and going forward though.  Jackson will probably spend a lot of time inactive and in the d-league.  Mickey probably will again.  I think you can change the inactive list game to game though so it's not a huge deal.

I think Hunter, Jackson and Mickey will be the final 3 spots.  Our rotation will probably be 10 deep but change depending on who we want to get time and injuries etc..

It's going to take a lot for Young or Bentil to steal one of those spots.

Re: Perhaps the Celtics don't need fireworks?
« Reply #40 on: August 25, 2016, 09:57:38 PM »

Offline mr. dee

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7828
  • Tommy Points: 597
That Pistons team had more talent, had no real weaknesses, and was put together extremely well.  And let's not underestimate just how good Ben Wallace was on the defensive side of the ball.  He was the best defensive player in basketball for a number of years and was also the best rebounder both by a wide margin (Boston has no one anywhere near Ben Wallace on this team).  Hamilton was a legit scorer from the wing (Boston has no equivalent).  Rasheed was a do it all big man (pretty similar to Horford).  Billups was a steady hand with ice in his veins (Thomas is somewhat close to him).  Prince was a solid all around player (Bradley is a better than he was, but similar in many ways).  The Pistons als had a great bench with Okur, Williamson, Hunter, and James.  Very nice mix of young talent (Okur left that summer and within 2 years was 18/9 starter for a good Jazz team) and cagey veterans (Williams, Hunter, James).

Until Boston has a #1 scorer on the wing and defensive/rebounding monster down low, it has no real shot of being a Pistons like team capable of winning it all without that top 10 talent (though you could argue that Ben Wallace was a top 10 guy even being as one dimensional as he was).  I think you could argue that Boston could get by without the scoring wing if it had the Ben Wallace type center (say Deandre Jordan), but even then there was no Cleveland or Golden State for the Pistons to navigate, just the bickering in-fighting 2 man show that was the Lakers (Malone and Payton were just too old to be any real use in the Finals).  The Pistons couldn't stop Shaq, but keyed on Kobe and shut him down and thus easily beat the Lakers in 5.

Golden State wasn't exactly a rebounding juggernaut, neither was Cleveland. Jaylen Brown could develop into our own Rip Hamilton or maybe even better. Smart is already way better than any of Piston's bench. Kelly may grow some pairs and start to become more aggressive. And let's not forget our BKN picks.

The problem with teams like Hawks and Grizzlies is they don't have a complete team.

Hawks - lacks real elite perimeter defenders
Grizzlies - lacks elite shooters

Let's not forget that our 2008 team wasn't really a great rebounding team too. Having a veteran shooters like Green, a healthy AB and KO would definitely solve our shooting woes.

Re: Perhaps the Celtics don't need fireworks?
« Reply #41 on: August 25, 2016, 10:02:23 PM »

Offline Boris Badenov

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5227
  • Tommy Points: 1065
It'll be interesting to see what happens around mid-year.

By then we will have a decent fix on draft quality, Brown's potential and the likely position of the BKN pick.

As much as we've improved our overall position in terms of both current talent and young/draft assets, Ainge has done it without sacrificing flexibility on the "win now" vs "build for the future" front. All of our good vets are highly moveable. All of our young talent is enough to trade for another star or superstar without sacrificing the current roster.

Amazing.


Re: Perhaps the Celtics don't need fireworks?
« Reply #42 on: August 25, 2016, 11:23:55 PM »

Offline CelticPride2016

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 776
  • Tommy Points: 247
Hey Celticspride thanks for that post.  I was going to make a similar one.  I was thinking about who will be active and who won't be,  who is still going to spend time in the d-league etc.  I agree our roster is set up really well this year and going forward though.  Jackson will probably spend a lot of time inactive and in the d-league.  Mickey probably will again.  I think you can change the inactive list game to game though so it's not a huge deal.

I think Hunter, Jackson and Mickey will be the final 3 spots.  Our rotation will probably be 10 deep but change depending on who we want to get time and injuries etc..

It's going to take a lot for Young or Bentil to steal one of those spots.

The Celtics have renounced the rights to Colton Iverson. I'm not sure why we never gave him a chance, yet a lot of these other guys get years like James Young.

I read an article a few months back on Holland. The team likes him and he fits in.

I'm reading an article from a week ago. This guy says Most likely cut is Holland. He mentions Gerald Green. That throws a monkey wrench into it. Although I think there was a more credible article that said four guys are fighting for one spot. It is very confusing. Danny used to make a million trades, so it looks like he will make at least one more. You are forcing me to look for things.

This guy I never heard of says Jackson is likely to take one of the roster slots.

That makes sense if everything is fair. Who needs 15 guys? I guess Mickey makes the team too? So it's those other guys going for one slot if I had to guess. Unless Mickey and Jackson start looking inept, I will guess they make it. And I wouldn't count out Holland. I am going to assume the competition will be strong.

I'm still mad that Sweetney didn't make the team nor Colton Iverson. I would have kept Pressey, but that's me.

Re: Perhaps the Celtics don't need fireworks?
« Reply #43 on: August 26, 2016, 08:08:56 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
That Pistons team had more talent, had no real weaknesses, and was put together extremely well.  And let's not underestimate just how good Ben Wallace was on the defensive side of the ball.  He was the best defensive player in basketball for a number of years and was also the best rebounder both by a wide margin (Boston has no one anywhere near Ben Wallace on this team).  Hamilton was a legit scorer from the wing (Boston has no equivalent).  Rasheed was a do it all big man (pretty similar to Horford).  Billups was a steady hand with ice in his veins (Thomas is somewhat close to him).  Prince was a solid all around player (Bradley is a better than he was, but similar in many ways).  The Pistons als had a great bench with Okur, Williamson, Hunter, and James.  Very nice mix of young talent (Okur left that summer and within 2 years was 18/9 starter for a good Jazz team) and cagey veterans (Williams, Hunter, James).

Until Boston has a #1 scorer on the wing and defensive/rebounding monster down low, it has no real shot of being a Pistons like team capable of winning it all without that top 10 talent (though you could argue that Ben Wallace was a top 10 guy even being as one dimensional as he was).  I think you could argue that Boston could get by without the scoring wing if it had the Ben Wallace type center (say Deandre Jordan), but even then there was no Cleveland or Golden State for the Pistons to navigate, just the bickering in-fighting 2 man show that was the Lakers (Malone and Payton were just too old to be any real use in the Finals).  The Pistons couldn't stop Shaq, but keyed on Kobe and shut him down and thus easily beat the Lakers in 5.

Golden State wasn't exactly a rebounding juggernaut, neither was Cleveland. Jaylen Brown could develop into our own Rip Hamilton or maybe even better. Smart is already way better than any of Piston's bench. Kelly may grow some pairs and start to become more aggressive. And let's not forget our BKN picks.

The problem with teams like Hawks and Grizzlies is they don't have a complete team.

Hawks - lacks real elite perimeter defenders
Grizzlies - lacks elite shooters

Let's not forget that our 2008 team wasn't really a great rebounding team too. Having a veteran shooters like Green, a healthy AB and KO would definitely solve our shooting woes.
Golden State had the two time defending MVP and two other All NBA members.  They have top tier Gold Medal Superstar talent.  That puts them in a different class than the Pistons, especially the year the Pistons actually won the title.  Golden State also had a very good interior big man in Bogut, a strong defending PF, and an excellent bench.  Cleveland was one of the best rebounding teams in basketball.  Not sure why you think they weren't.  Outrebounding their opponents by over 3 a game and getting a much greater percentage of available rebounds (25.1 ORB and 78.5 DRB which means their opponents were 22.5 and 74.9 respectively).  Cleveland also has the best player in basketball and an all time special room player. 

Boston is certainly no where near GS and Cleveland, and they aren't anywhere near where that Detroit team was either.  Unless Smart takes a big jump he isn't as good as Mehmet Okur and probably isn't even as useful overall as a guy like Mike James (who played his role perfectly on the Pistons), of course that might not matter if the Celtics starting lineup was anywhere near as talented as the Pistons starting lineup, which it is not. 
« Last Edit: August 26, 2016, 11:13:35 AM by Moranis »
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip