How long before Celtics contend for Championship?

[chilidawg]

You can develop a young team, and sign a free agent or two.

POne of our problems is we have some guys that think of themselves as starter material only, and will not adjust to anything but being a starter. If they don't start they'll take their marbles and go home.

imagine signing Hayward, keeping Crowder, drafting Fultz or Ball and keeping IT.

Where do you get the notion that our starters are that selfish?  That's just uncalled for.

[Surferdad]

I think the better question is: How long before they consistently contend for a championship every year?

[CoachBo]

At this point, I am unconvinced that a championship is ownership's goal.

[Moranis]

I find it odd that 3 years has more votes than 4+ years given how vocal this board is about young players not being able to compete for a championship for awhile.  Thus, shouldn't all those people be voting for 4+ years and not 3 years since both are premised on building a team around rookie contract players. 

[jdz101]

At this point, I am unconvinced that a championship is ownership's goal.

At this point you better back up a ridiculous post like that with some sort of reasoning.

[Granath]

What is the definition of "contend for a championship"? That's an opinion statement.

It could be argued that Brooklyn is "contending for a championship" this year by virtue of being in the NBA. It could be argued that any team making the playoffs is contending. Do you have to make the NBA finals to contend (meaning that the 81-82 Celtics weren't contenders)? The original statement needs to be clarified.

My personal definition is that a team contends when they win 50 games and have home court in the 1st round of the playoffs. This picks up teams like the 2003 Pistons, the 2005 Heat, the 2010 Mavs - teams in the last 15 years who either didn't win 55 games or didn't win their division but still went on to win the whole ball of wax.   

With that definition in mind the Cs are contenders this year. They're on pace to win 52 games (same as the 2005 Heat), win their division and have the 2nd seed in the playoffs. They aren't the odds-on favorite but according to likely seed and Vegas odds the Cs have the 2nd best chance in the Eastern Conference.

[GratefulCs]

At this point, I am unconvinced that a championship is ownership's goal.

lol

[Phantom255x]

At this point, I am unconvinced that a championship is ownership's goal.

To be fair I don't think any of us expected a championship this year or next anyways.

Unless they somehow land Griffin/Hayward (FA) as well as trade for Butler Draft Night before FA.

[Phantom255x]

Surprised a lot of people think this team is 3+ years away.

Maybe 2, but longer than 3?

I trust Ainge will sign someone or make a blockbuster trade within next year's trade deadline. If not then yeah I'll agree.

I'm glad Ainge didn't overpay for Butler right now though. The price could lower on draft day.

Lebron exists yes, but at age 34-35 will he be this super effective with the minutes he's playing nowadays and will play all through the playoffs?

Add a star somehow, keep the young core going and we could break through.

[nebist]

They're the second seed in the east.  They are contending right now.  I'm not saying they are legit favorites or anything.  Obviously the Cavs, Warriors, and Spurs are probably 95% likely to win this year.  But crazier things can happen.  The Rockets weren't supposed to be in the Finals in 86.  Everyone thought it would be the Lakers, but the Rockets still took the Celts to 6 games.  What if Bird had gone down in game 1?  Maybe the Rockets shock the world and win a championship in a year everyone thought it was going to the Celts or Lakers.  All it takes is LeBron to turn an ankle and have Durant's injury flare up and the Celts could steal one this year.  Not likely but not impossible. 

In terms of being a more legitimate contender on the level of the Cavs, Warriors, and Spurs, I expect that to happen next year.  Let's say we win 53 games and advance to the 2nd round or ECF this year.  We are set up to without a doubt add 1 marquee player to that team (draft) and likely a 2nd (FA or trade).  You add 2 marquee players to our current core, and you should be talking about a team winning 55-60 games next year, a 1 or 2 seed in the East, and a legit top tier contender.

[Ory]

Two and a half more months. 

[nickagneta]

I find it odd that 3 years has more votes than 4+ years given how vocal this board is about young players not being able to compete for a championship for awhile.  Thus, shouldn't all those people be voting for 4+ years and not 3 years since both are premised on building a team around rookie contract players.

I think you mat be getting some groups intermingled. There is a large portion of bloggers that feel we should build the next contender on youth but within that group there are also a great many that actually think that after being drafted, a player can become a playoff difference making star within 2-3 years. There are a bunch of posters like myself that advocate not to get your hopes to high to become playoff stars and lead us to contendership until 5-6 years after they are drafted, but I think I am in the minority.

[Moranis]

I find it odd that 3 years has more votes than 4+ years given how vocal this board is about young players not being able to compete for a championship for awhile.  Thus, shouldn't all those people be voting for 4+ years and not 3 years since both are premised on building a team around rookie contract players.

I think you mat be getting some groups intermingled. There is a large portion of bloggers that feel we should build the next contender on youth but within that group there are also a great many that actually think that after being drafted, a player can become a playoff difference making star within 2-3 years. There are a bunch of posters like myself that advocate not to get your hopes to high to become playoff stars and lead us to contendership until 5-6 years after they are drafted, but I think I am in the minority.

That may be and I know Boston is a bit different in that it can build a team around youth and keep some veterans (though I'm of the belief most veterans really need to be gone for the young guys to really hit their potential).  I just can't see how Boston is realistically a real contender in 3 years by building a team around the young guys.  4 years certainly possible if Fulz/Ball/Jackson is as good as advertised and Brown continues his growth, but 3 years just seems strange to me (if you go the build around the youth model).

[Granath]

Again, I'll pose the question:

How do you define a contender?

[Surferdad]

What is the definition of "contend for a championship"? That's an opinion statement.

It could be argued that Brooklyn is "contending for a championship" this year by virtue of being in the NBA. It could be argued that any team making the playoffs is contending. Do you have to make the NBA finals to contend (meaning that the 81-82 Celtics weren't contenders)? The original statement needs to be clarified.

My personal definition is that a team contends when they win 50 games and have home court in the 1st round of the playoffs. This picks up teams like the 2003 Pistons, the 2005 Heat, the 2010 Mavs - teams in the last 15 years who either didn't win 55 games or didn't win their division but still went on to win the whole ball of wax.   

With that definition in mind the Cs are contenders this year. They're on pace to win 52 games (same as the 2005 Heat), win their division and have the 2nd seed in the playoffs. They aren't the odds-on favorite but according to likely seed and Vegas odds the Cs have the 2nd best chance in the Eastern Conference.

I could go with that definition, but I think you need to advance beyond the 1st round as well.  So my definition is more strict but in the same ballpark.