Develop younger players or sign proven vets for the minimum?

[Alleyoopster]

The Celtics had their 1-2 year experiment with RJ, Jordan, Jackson and Rozier. One of these players turned out to be a keeper. Obviously, that player turned out to be Terry.

He developed into an excellent defender, an okay ball handler and a pretty good offensive player. His passing and his to-the-hoop confidence could use some help. Overall, he's a productive player and a good asset to have on the team.

Now the question is; do we keep trying to develop these 2nd round or late first round picks or do we cut bait early and look around for better players that might be unsigned for some reason.

I only mention this because the concept of developing players might be something of the past. With the lure of big money and basketball's greater international exposure there is a much larger pool of talented players to select from. Thus, even if you give up on a player early there will almost always be an equally talented player available a year or two into the future. 

Examples of this phenomenon: Last year Boston signed Gerald Green late in the summer. This year the New York Knicks signed Ramon Sessions. Philly picked up JJ Reddick and Amir Johnson. Seems most teams have made similar signings. (yes, I'm aware of the cap and that the players I mentioned are not playing for the minimum... I don't have time to find better examples.)

Cleveland is fortunate in that some players are willing to forego lucrative contracts in an effort to play with LeBron. On the other hand, Cleveland is also very in-tuned with the waiver wire. Probably the best in the League in that category. They always seem to pick up 2-3 proven players late in the season. 

Danny doesn't leave himself open to signing "released" players because he over-staffs the team from the beginning of the season. My feeling is Danny should have 14 players under contract and leave himself open to signing established talent for the minimum. It's likely they'd be much more useful to the team in case of injury and/or be more productive during a possible playoff run.

In a recent post I argued that the Celtics might be better off signing Brandon Bass than keeping marginal 2nd round picks. I'm fairly certain, unless Nader prove me wrong, that none of these end-of-the-bench players will contribute much and likely not be on the roster next year. So, are they worth keeping? Are we going to keep coddling players with G-League development opportunities or should we have a reduced staff and wait until proven vets become available for the minimum? 


 

[TheSundanceKid]

I think the context of the roster matters here. A rotation tends to be 10 deep most nights and you are likely to go as deep as your 12th man in the case of injury in most scenarios. Our core rotation is:

IT
Hayward
Crowder
Horford
Baynes
Smart
Brown
Morris

That's 8 veteran types who will soak up 80-90% of the minutes. Past that you have Tatum and Theis who I see as the two rookies who can break into the rotation and of course Rozier. We're already at 11. The other 4 guys on the main roster and the 2 guys on 2 way contracts aren't seeing the floor much. Their development time is in practice and in Maine.

So if we swapped them out for some vets like Sessions or Green or kept Amir then what do we achieve? Would they be better than those core guys? I could see that perhaps they would challenge those guys in practice or preach the right messages but I also feel our guys are good at that kind of thing already, it's what got a lot of them where they are.

I'm also aware that the team is not the finished product, we are not built to win this year. We are still developing, I'm not convinced we beat the Cavs even if they trade Irving, although it would be closer. So I'm happy developing the guys who may replace Morris or Crowder or even Smart in that rotation and evaluate it next summer or the summer after. Perhaps a trade next summer opens up some roster spots and we have a need of a few vets right now I don't see it benefiting us.

[Chris22]

Young guys all the way.
I like our team as it is.

[Moranis]

Depends on a number of factors, but most importantly who are the veterans and which young players are they supplanting.  Also, depends on what you truly believe of this team.  If you believe it can be a real threat to Cleveland, then it would make sense to add players that could actually contribute a playoff series against the Cavs as opposed to a young guy that won't ever see the court. 

[colincb]

You can have a team with all veterans when you're a contender. Otherwise, there seems to be some thought that you can only develop 2-3 rookies and contend. When you're rebuilding, you don't want expensive vets like Love around, but cheap vets with strong character/work ethic are useful no matter what type of team you have.

The Cs are an outlier as far as rebuilding goes without an extraordinary player like Bird or LeBron etc. that is on the verge of contending while having a lot of youth and change. You have to give credit to Stevens for being able to pull it off so far, but when you have 9 new players, one has to wonder how far you can stretch. I wouldn't be adverse to some consolidation of assets and you know Ainge wouldn't either.

[jambr380]

I'm willing to roll with the young guys now. If we look to be a true contender at the deadline, then we can always waive a player or two and pick up some veteran help. It is always good to try to get cheap, young help (signed for multiple years) whenever possible. There are a number of productive players who were picked late in the first round or 2nd round (see IT). If Danny takes enough swings with all of these draft picks he acquired, then one or two of them should pan out.

[Alleyoopster]

I think the context of the roster matters here. A rotation tends to be 10 deep most nights and you are likely to go as deep as your 12th man in the case of injury in most scenarios. Our core rotation is:

IT
Hayward
Crowder
Horford
Baynes
Smart
Brown
Morris

That's 8 veteran types who will soak up 80-90% of the minutes. Past that you have Tatum and Theis who I see as the two rookies who can break into the rotation and of course Rozier. We're already at 11. The other 4 guys on the main roster and the 2 guys on 2 way contracts aren't seeing the floor much. Their development time is in practice and in Maine.

So if we swapped them out for some vets like Sessions or Green or kept Amir then what do we achieve? Would they be better than those core guys? I could see that perhaps they would challenge those guys in practice or preach the right messages but I also feel our guys are good at that kind of thing already, it's what got a lot of them where they are.

I'm also aware that the team is not the finished product, we are not built to win this year. We are still developing, I'm not convinced we beat the Cavs even if they trade Irving, although it would be closer. So I'm happy developing the guys who may replace Morris or Crowder or even Smart in that rotation and evaluate it next summer or the summer after. Perhaps a trade next summer opens up some roster spots and we have a need of a few vets right now I don't see it benefiting us.

With high rates of player turnover I don't feel we can take the position of "we are not built to win this year." Every year should be the year to win it all. Over the past couple years we've lost key players to trades, non-resignings and free agency. It's going to happen again next summer.  Development and picking up new players is important. But, we should be realistic too. 

[LatterDayCelticsfan]

Reclaim an bust from the scrap heap and flip them for a pick?

[chilidawg]

The GSW did a good job of developing a few young guys to supplement their veteran core.  The Cavaliers OTOH kept signing more veteran retreads.  I think the Warriors got more out of guys like McCaw and Clark than the Cavs did out their vets, and it sets them up better for the future.   I like the path the Celts are on.

[slamtheking]

I think the context of the roster matters here. A rotation tends to be 10 deep most nights and you are likely to go as deep as your 12th man in the case of injury in most scenarios. Our core rotation is:

IT
Hayward
Crowder
Horford
Baynes
Smart
Brown
Morris

That's 8 veteran types who will soak up 80-90% of the minutes. Past that you have Tatum and Theis who I see as the two rookies who can break into the rotation and of course Rozier. We're already at 11. The other 4 guys on the main roster and the 2 guys on 2 way contracts aren't seeing the floor much. Their development time is in practice and in Maine.

So if we swapped them out for some vets like Sessions or Green or kept Amir then what do we achieve? Would they be better than those core guys? I could see that perhaps they would challenge those guys in practice or preach the right messages but I also feel our guys are good at that kind of thing already, it's what got a lot of them where they are.

I'm also aware that the team is not the finished product, we are not built to win this year. We are still developing, I'm not convinced we beat the Cavs even if they trade Irving, although it would be closer. So I'm happy developing the guys who may replace Morris or Crowder or even Smart in that rotation and evaluate it next summer or the summer after. Perhaps a trade next summer opens up some roster spots and we have a need of a few vets right now I don't see it benefiting us.

With high rates of player turnover I don't feel we can take the position of "we are not built to win this year." Every year should be the year to win it all. Over the past couple years we've lost key players to trades, non-resignings and free agency. It's going to happen again next summer.  Development and picking up new players is important. But, we should be realistic too. 

you can add Rozier and most likely Tatum to that 10 man rotation.  Yabu, Nader and Semi aren't likely to get much court time if any.  if they do, it's because they've earned it. 

If the C's are able to add a good solid vet on the money they have left, they should.  that's still a pretty young and somewhat unproven roster that could certainly use a serviceable vet coming off the bench.

[TheSundanceKid]

I think the context of the roster matters here. A rotation tends to be 10 deep most nights and you are likely to go as deep as your 12th man in the case of injury in most scenarios. Our core rotation is:

IT
Hayward
Crowder
Horford
Baynes
Smart
Brown
Morris

That's 8 veteran types who will soak up 80-90% of the minutes. Past that you have Tatum and Theis who I see as the two rookies who can break into the rotation and of course Rozier. We're already at 11. The other 4 guys on the main roster and the 2 guys on 2 way contracts aren't seeing the floor much. Their development time is in practice and in Maine.

So if we swapped them out for some vets like Sessions or Green or kept Amir then what do we achieve? Would they be better than those core guys? I could see that perhaps they would challenge those guys in practice or preach the right messages but I also feel our guys are good at that kind of thing already, it's what got a lot of them where they are.

I'm also aware that the team is not the finished product, we are not built to win this year. We are still developing, I'm not convinced we beat the Cavs even if they trade Irving, although it would be closer. So I'm happy developing the guys who may replace Morris or Crowder or even Smart in that rotation and evaluate it next summer or the summer after. Perhaps a trade next summer opens up some roster spots and we have a need of a few vets right now I don't see it benefiting us.

With high rates of player turnover I don't feel we can take the position of "we are not built to win this year." Every year should be the year to win it all. Over the past couple years we've lost key players to trades, non-resignings and free agency. It's going to happen again next summer.  Development and picking up new players is important. But, we should be realistic too.

I don't mean that we won't try to win, we should try every year. I mean that Danny Ainge tries to plan a course towards winning and we aren't at the end of that plan yet. As such I think it is important that we do continue to develop players that we hope can help when that peak comes.

[CelticsJG]

Develop the young players. Already hate the fact we got guys slowing our young guys progress now.

[More Banners]

The thing is, we have young guys that can play.

[OHCeltic]

Keep a good mix of younger guys and experienced vets.

[CelticsJG]

The thing is, we have young guys that can play.

We do have young guys that can play. The problem is were pseudo contenders so the young players are on a short leash so can't make mistakes to develop their game. Since their offseason is shorten, less time they have to work on their game.