Zach Lowe on Boston Standing Pat, For Now

[Big333223]

The Celtics are fine. They are the envy of the league, really. They are a good team now, and they might pick in the top three of the next two drafts. That is insane.

But it guarantees them nothing. Getting Butler wouldn't have guaranteed them anything either, beyond the security of having him on the team. It's fine for Boston to have stood pat. These are hard choices. There are more coming. Boston has to get some big ones right.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/18750650/zach-lowe-boston-celtics-trade-deadline-nba

This pretty well encompasses how I feel. I would've loved to see a deal for Paul Goeorge (or even Nerlens) but it's ok that it didn't happen. The Celtics are still in good position and will be this summer.

[celts55]

Guess my question is, it they plan to compete in a few years, why pay Horford all that money? He's not getting younger, and not sure what he'll bring to the table in 2 years.
I didn't want them to gut the team either, but it's abundantly clear they need help on the boards.
A big that can rebound would make them at least competitive.
IMHO

[boscel33]

Because they can sign a max (Hayward) over the summer, have a very good lineup, one that can challenge to make the finals, while still developing the young guns (Smart, Brown, 17, 18, Zizic).

[Fan from VT]

Guess my question is, it they plan to compete in a few years, why pay Horford all that money? He's not getting younger, and not sure what he'll bring to the table in 2 years.
I didn't want them to gut the team either, but it's abundantly clear they need help on the boards.
A big that can rebound would make them at least competitive.
IMHO

I think it was a calculated risk that it wouldn't hamper their future too much, but would improve them in the short term, and, really, it gave them a good chance at Durant, which was part of the gamble.

[ederson]

Guess my question is, it they plan to compete in a few years, why pay Horford all that money? He's not getting younger, and not sure what he'll bring to the table in 2 years.
I didn't want them to gut the team either, but it's abundantly clear they need help on the boards.
A big that can rebound would make them at least competitive.
IMHO

Even if they target to compete in 2-3 years still they have/need to present a competitive team. You don't just quit a couple of seasons. IAnd besides they got Horford for free.

[Casperian]

Yeah, that was a good article (as usual from Lowe), but I think this statement is just stupid:

Without an injection of star talent, Boston risks being good now and good later, but never great.

He's talking about the next 5-10 years here. He's technically correct in that there is indeed a risk, but since it's absolutely impossible to make predictions 5-10 years into the future, the "risk" of being good for a decade is a risk I'm willing to take, if no godfather offer for an established star comes along.

If we have a "good but not great" young core for 10 years, I have all the faith in the world in our FO to make a few little moves that would put us over the top. We're talking about the same guys who got Crowder for Rondo and Isaiah Thomas for a bag of doritos, which makes the overall risk more than managable, imo.

[Big333223]

Yeah, that was a good article (as usual from Lowe), but I think this statement is just stupid:

Without an injection of star talent, Boston risks being good now and good later, but never great.

He's talking about the next 5-10 years here. He's technically correct in that there is indeed a risk, but since it's absolutely impossible to make predictions 5-10 years into the future, the "risk" of being good for a decade is a risk I'm willing to take, if no godfather offer for an established star comes along.

If we have a "good but not great" young core for 10 years, I have all the faith in the world in our FO to make a few little moves that would put us over the top. We're talking about the same guys who got Crowder for Rondo and Isaiah Thomas for a bag of doritos, which makes the overall risk more than managable, imo.

I agree. That statement from Lowe is, technically, true. But when is that ever not a risk? That the Celtics are in a position where there is very little risk of being less than good ever in the next decade means something.