Author Topic: Develop younger players or sign proven vets for the minimum?  (Read 7297 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Develop younger players or sign proven vets for the minimum?
« Reply #15 on: August 01, 2017, 11:18:22 PM »

Offline Alleyoopster

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1310
  • Tommy Points: 150
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.

TP Good thinking...in a similar thought....if the young players are so worried about staying with the team they'll never flourish because they'll always be looking over their shoulders. 

Re: Develop younger players or sign proven vets for the minimum?
« Reply #16 on: August 02, 2017, 12:34:26 AM »

Offline mahcus smaht

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 577
  • Tommy Points: 4
case by case.

Re: Develop younger players or sign proven vets for the minimum?
« Reply #17 on: August 02, 2017, 02:15:09 AM »

Offline TheSundanceKid

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2493
  • Tommy Points: 199
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.
I don't think that's true at all. The guys that matter get better at a rate of knots, just look at Jaylen. I could counter what you say with the fact that they get to practice against elite talent every day which accelerates their improvement.

I've never understood the theory that having your first 4-7 years in the league on a struggling team is an advantage. Take John Wall as an example. He's definitely good enough to compete at finals level and has been for a few years but his team has been nowhere near ready so he's essentially wasted those years. Has he been on the Spurs or Celtics he could have seen multiple finals by now. Which would have been better for his development?

Re: Develop younger players or sign proven vets for the minimum?
« Reply #18 on: August 02, 2017, 07:08:46 AM »

Offline More Banners

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3845
  • Tommy Points: 257
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.

Our young guys just played in the conference finals. They're gonna play this year. At least Rozier and Brown (and Smart).

They way I see young, really talented players develop on the C's is they first learn defense to get on the floor. Then, they're not trown out there and asked to be heroes, they often stand in the corner, or play a minor role offensively to get their feet wet and hopefully build some success. The minutes go as they grow. We don't have Doc coaching who doesn't know what to do with young guys.

It'll be tough for our 3rd string to see time, but might by midseason. Is that what you mean?  Should we sign an old decrepit 3rd string of washed up veterans?  Young guys cheer louder, so I say go with them.

Re: Develop younger players or sign proven vets for the minimum?
« Reply #19 on: August 02, 2017, 08:30:38 AM »

Offline Greyman

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 784
  • Tommy Points: 211
Current crops of both, the young players have the greater value for me. The Celtics have at least two who could be super and a host who can contribute. It would also depend on the vet though. Obviously if LBJ became available everything changes.

Re: Develop younger players or sign proven vets for the minimum?
« Reply #20 on: August 02, 2017, 09:02:29 AM »

Offline Granath

  • NCE
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2154
  • Tommy Points: 567
I think we already know Danny's answer to this - he's gone with the young guns.

But I think the OP asks the wrong question. See, most win-now teams don't have the opportunity to develop younger guys. They have late first round picks about every other year and a smattering of 2nd rounders. They're forced to take on minimum vets because they lack any other options to do so.

Danny's playing a different game. He's playing a win now and win later game. Plus, he knows he has enough vets to cover the minutes. In fact, he has a minutes crunch on this team. He doesn't need other vets. Look at the roster breakdown from last year:

IT - 34 minutes per game
Hayward - 34
Crowder - 32
Horford - 32
Morris - 32
Smart - 30
Brown -17
Rozier - 17
Baynes- 15

I'll save you the math. That's 243 minutes. Now add in 20 minutes for Tatum, because the #3 pick is going to get on the floor. That's 263 minutes. There's 240 minutes in a game (48*5 = 240).

Of course, this doesn't account for injuries. So run the same analysis for total minutes played last year (which would factor in any injuries last year), giving Tatum 20 minutes per game for 70 games (1400 minutes). You wind up with 19,744 minutes played. There's 19,680 available via math (48*5*82) and the entire Celtics team played 19,755 minutes (which includes rounding) last year.

Guys like Brown and Rozier are expected to have more minutes this year. Brown is likely to come close to 2,000 minutes this year (+500 conservatively) and Rozier should top 1,500 (+250). So now we're at 20,500 minutes played when there's only 19,680 available. And this doesn't take into account guys who are expected to contribute like Semi, Zizic and Theis.

In short, there's a MAJOR minutes crunch if you use last year's minutes played. Veteran backups are good only in case injuries are far worse than they were last year and even then there's still a minutes overload.

So why have veteran backups who wouldn't play unless the injury situation was so bad that the season was lost anyway? Instead, fill the back half of the roster with talented young guys and let's see what they can do. Let them earn minutes the hard way by going against a talented core every single day in practice. We'll see the cream rise to the top and we'll be stronger for it in the long run.
Jaylen Brown will be an All Star in the next 5 years.

Re: Develop younger players or sign proven vets for the minimum?
« Reply #21 on: August 02, 2017, 10:41:05 AM »

Offline TheSundanceKid

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2493
  • Tommy Points: 199
Tatum getting 20 minutes is going to be difficult. Brown didn't average that many and he had less guys in front of him. Remember that Brad chose to go with JJ a lot last year when he could have gone Brown. I expect him to do the same this year.

People aren't paying attention to Theis either. Yes he's on a vet min but you only pay someone what you need to. He's a high energy player who hits 3s and blocks shots. He'll find his way into the rotation in the same way JJ did.

Re: Develop younger players or sign proven vets for the minimum?
« Reply #22 on: August 02, 2017, 11:17:27 AM »

Offline CelticsJG

  • Brad Stevens
  • Posts: 201
  • Tommy Points: 11
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.
I don't think that's true at all. The guys that matter get better at a rate of knots, just look at Jaylen. I could counter what you say with the fact that they get to practice against elite talent every day which accelerates their improvement.

I've never understood the theory that having your first 4-7 years in the league on a struggling team is an advantage. Take John Wall as an example. He's definitely good enough to compete at finals level and has been for a few years but his team has been nowhere near ready so he's essentially wasted those years. Has he been on the Spurs or Celtics he could have seen multiple finals by now. Which would have been better for his development?

Jaylen was on a super short leash last year. How many times Stevens pulled him within first 2 mins of him entering the game? Practicing is not the same as in game experience. If the team is still struggling after 4-7 years thats on the gm.

 
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.

Our young guys just played in the conference finals. They're gonna play this year. At least Rozier and Brown (and Smart).

They way I see young, really talented players develop on the C's is they first learn defense to get on the floor. Then, they're not trown out there and asked to be heroes, they often stand in the corner, or play a minor role offensively to get their feet wet and hopefully build some success. The minutes go as they grow. We don't have Doc coaching who doesn't know what to do with young guys.

It'll be tough for our 3rd string to see time, but might by midseason. Is that what you mean?  Should we sign an old decrepit 3rd string of washed up veterans?  Young guys cheer louder, so I say go with them.

What? I am in favor of playing the young guys. Just hate that we are trying to win now and develop young players.

Re: Develop younger players or sign proven vets for the minimum?
« Reply #23 on: August 02, 2017, 12:10:49 PM »

Offline TheSundanceKid

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2493
  • Tommy Points: 199
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.
I don't think that's true at all. The guys that matter get better at a rate of knots, just look at Jaylen. I could counter what you say with the fact that they get to practice against elite talent every day which accelerates their improvement.

I've never understood the theory that having your first 4-7 years in the league on a struggling team is an advantage. Take John Wall as an example. He's definitely good enough to compete at finals level and has been for a few years but his team has been nowhere near ready so he's essentially wasted those years. Has he been on the Spurs or Celtics he could have seen multiple finals by now. Which would have been better for his development?

Jaylen was on a super short leash last year. How many times Stevens pulled him within first 2 mins of him entering the game? Practicing is not the same as in game experience. If the team is still struggling after 4-7 years thats on the gm.
It's on the GM? How many teams get a top pick and then 4 years later are contending? OKC is the last team I can think of that did it quickly and that was considered excellent work by Sam Presti as opposed to the norm.
Jaylen got pulled when he missed defensive rotations or made silly offensive plays. It payed off for him as towards the seasons end he was cutting them out and being rewarded. Structure is more important than overall game time. If you asked a guy like Porzingis if he'd rather play limited minutes on a contender or play 30mpg on a losing team for 4 years he wouldn't blink before choosing us. Winners care about winning and they do what they need to do to win. Jaylen looks to me like a winner who is going to improve what he needs to improve to win regardless of how much time he initially gets on the court.

This is a concept that drafts create in North America. In Europe where drafts don't exist you long to join the best teams and earn your minutes, the best young players move to the bigger clubs and may wait an extra year or two to make the starting lineup as opposed to starting for a lesser team. It's because training with the best is more important than game time. You learn more and you get challenged more. We're in a unique position where we have the best of both worlds, there is absolutely nothing to complain about

Re: Develop younger players or sign proven vets for the minimum?
« Reply #24 on: August 02, 2017, 12:25:57 PM »

Offline Granath

  • NCE
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2154
  • Tommy Points: 567
Tatum getting 20 minutes is going to be difficult. Brown didn't average that many and he had less guys in front of him. Remember that Brad chose to go with JJ a lot last year when he could have gone Brown. I expect him to do the same this year.

People aren't paying attention to Theis either. Yes he's on a vet min but you only pay someone what you need to. He's a high energy player who hits 3s and blocks shots. He'll find his way into the rotation in the same way JJ did.

Brown was considered a significantly less-polished prospect coming out of college as a high-upside guy who was not ready to contribute. Tatum is seen as a guy with an offensive skill set that can produce today. As long as he's what we all think he is, he'll come off the bench with the second unit and stay on the floor to provide offensive punch so long as he's not a defensive turnstile.

Actually, I'm probably understating my minutes for Tatum. I have him booked at 1,400 total minutes for the season which is only 59 more than Brown got all of last year. I wouldn't be surprised if he received considerably more than that.
Jaylen Brown will be an All Star in the next 5 years.

Re: Develop younger players or sign proven vets for the minimum?
« Reply #25 on: August 02, 2017, 12:39:11 PM »

Offline CelticsJG

  • Brad Stevens
  • Posts: 201
  • Tommy Points: 11
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.
I don't think that's true at all. The guys that matter get better at a rate of knots, just look at Jaylen. I could counter what you say with the fact that they get to practice against elite talent every day which accelerates their improvement.

I've never understood the theory that having your first 4-7 years in the league on a struggling team is an advantage. Take John Wall as an example. He's definitely good enough to compete at finals level and has been for a few years but his team has been nowhere near ready so he's essentially wasted those years. Has he been on the Spurs or Celtics he could have seen multiple finals by now. Which would have been better for his development?

Jaylen was on a super short leash last year. How many times Stevens pulled him within first 2 mins of him entering the game? Practicing is not the same as in game experience. If the team is still struggling after 4-7 years thats on the gm.
It's on the GM? How many teams get a top pick and then 4 years later are contending? OKC is the last team I can think of that did it quickly and that was considered excellent work by Sam Presti as opposed to the norm.
Jaylen got pulled when he missed defensive rotations or made silly offensive plays. It payed off for him as towards the seasons end he was cutting them out and being rewarded. Structure is more important than overall game time. If you asked a guy like Porzingis if he'd rather play limited minutes on a contender or play 30mpg on a losing team for 4 years he wouldn't blink before choosing us. Winners care about winning and they do what they need to do to win. Jaylen looks to me like a winner who is going to improve what he needs to improve to win regardless of how much time he initially gets on the court.

This is a concept that drafts create in North America. In Europe where drafts don't exist you long to join the best teams and earn your minutes, the best young players move to the bigger clubs and may wait an extra year or two to make the starting lineup as opposed to starting for a lesser team. It's because training with the best is more important than game time. You learn more and you get challenged more. We're in a unique position where we have the best of both worlds, there is absolutely nothing to complain about

If the player shown potential to be star, it is on the GM to to build around said star.  At some point you going to need to hold management accountable. Rest of your statement is just rambling nonsense.

Did you really compare NBA drafting and development to soccer? Not the same.

Re: Develop younger players or sign proven vets for the minimum?
« Reply #26 on: August 02, 2017, 12:41:10 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
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.
I don't think that's true at all. The guys that matter get better at a rate of knots, just look at Jaylen. I could counter what you say with the fact that they get to practice against elite talent every day which accelerates their improvement.

I've never understood the theory that having your first 4-7 years in the league on a struggling team is an advantage. Take John Wall as an example. He's definitely good enough to compete at finals level and has been for a few years but his team has been nowhere near ready so he's essentially wasted those years. Has he been on the Spurs or Celtics he could have seen multiple finals by now. Which would have been better for his development?

Jaylen was on a super short leash last year. How many times Stevens pulled him within first 2 mins of him entering the game? Practicing is not the same as in game experience. If the team is still struggling after 4-7 years thats on the gm.
It's on the GM? How many teams get a top pick and then 4 years later are contending? OKC is the last team I can think of that did it quickly and that was considered excellent work by Sam Presti as opposed to the norm.
Jaylen got pulled when he missed defensive rotations or made silly offensive plays. It payed off for him as towards the seasons end he was cutting them out and being rewarded. Structure is more important than overall game time. If you asked a guy like Porzingis if he'd rather play limited minutes on a contender or play 30mpg on a losing team for 4 years he wouldn't blink before choosing us. Winners care about winning and they do what they need to do to win. Jaylen looks to me like a winner who is going to improve what he needs to improve to win regardless of how much time he initially gets on the court.

This is a concept that drafts create in North America. In Europe where drafts don't exist you long to join the best teams and earn your minutes, the best young players move to the bigger clubs and may wait an extra year or two to make the starting lineup as opposed to starting for a lesser team. It's because training with the best is more important than game time. You learn more and you get challenged more. We're in a unique position where we have the best of both worlds, there is absolutely nothing to complain about
The reality in the NBA is that all teams really are pretty similar when it comes to training, nutrition, etc.  Obviously the better teams have better talent, and players no matter where they start generally end up at whatever their ceiling will ultimately be, but players do get there a lot faster when they get as much playing time as they can reasonably handle.  Pretty much all of the HOFers were allowed to play as many minutes as they could handle from day 1 in the league, and most of them were well over 24 mpg as rookies.  Sometimes the great players are slower to develop (like Jimmy Butler), but even then it is rare for their minutes to be artificially lowered because of outside players, it tends to be just a matter of them not be able to handle more minutes initially.  I think the best way to describe it was Jaylen Brown's minutes were limited because of the players ahead of him in the depth chart, while Kelly Olynyk's minutes were limited because he just couldn't handle playing any more than he did. 
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

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

Re: Develop younger players or sign proven vets for the minimum?
« Reply #27 on: August 02, 2017, 06:32:11 PM »

Offline TheSundanceKid

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2493
  • Tommy Points: 199
Moranis, how many HOFers started their careers on a good team? The draft system means that the best players tend to start on bad teams where minutes come with no restrictions. That does not mean it is the best way to develop talent. It only means it is the most common.

CelticsJG, nice dodge but can you name me some teams that went from drafting a star to contending in 4 years? Then we can see if your logic is reasonable.

As for the comparison to football it is relevant because it shows what development is like in an unrestricted system. If the NBA were a free for all you would see talent move to the best locations like you do in football (soccer). In the NBA the best young talent is forced to the worse teams in the name of balance. That's a good thing for the league but not necessarily for the player. The player would rather contend from day one.

It illustrates this floored logic fans have that clearing vets to play youth is the best long term solution. Tanking and player development are two separate concepts that often get confused by NBA fans.

Re: Develop younger players or sign proven vets for the minimum?
« Reply #28 on: August 02, 2017, 06:42:11 PM »

Offline chilidawg

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2009
  • Tommy Points: 261
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.
I don't think that's true at all. The guys that matter get better at a rate of knots, just look at Jaylen. I could counter what you say with the fact that they get to practice against elite talent every day which accelerates their improvement.

I've never understood the theory that having your first 4-7 years in the league on a struggling team is an advantage. Take John Wall as an example. He's definitely good enough to compete at finals level and has been for a few years but his team has been nowhere near ready so he's essentially wasted those years. Has he been on the Spurs or Celtics he could have seen multiple finals by now. Which would have been better for his development?

Jaylen was on a super short leash last year. How many times Stevens pulled him within first 2 mins of him entering the game? Practicing is not the same as in game experience. If the team is still struggling after 4-7 years thats on the gm.
It's on the GM? How many teams get a top pick and then 4 years later are contending? OKC is the last team I can think of that did it quickly and that was considered excellent work by Sam Presti as opposed to the norm.
Jaylen got pulled when he missed defensive rotations or made silly offensive plays. It payed off for him as towards the seasons end he was cutting them out and being rewarded. Structure is more important than overall game time. If you asked a guy like Porzingis if he'd rather play limited minutes on a contender or play 30mpg on a losing team for 4 years he wouldn't blink before choosing us. Winners care about winning and they do what they need to do to win. Jaylen looks to me like a winner who is going to improve what he needs to improve to win regardless of how much time he initially gets on the court.

This is a concept that drafts create in North America. In Europe where drafts don't exist you long to join the best teams and earn your minutes, the best young players move to the bigger clubs and may wait an extra year or two to make the starting lineup as opposed to starting for a lesser team. It's because training with the best is more important than game time. You learn more and you get challenged more. We're in a unique position where we have the best of both worlds, there is absolutely nothing to complain about

If the player shown potential to be star, it is on the GM to to build around said star.  At some point you going to need to hold management accountable. Rest of your statement is just rambling nonsense.

Did you really compare NBA drafting and development to soccer? Not the same.

Made a lot more sense to me than your posts.

Re: Develop younger players or sign proven vets for the minimum?
« Reply #29 on: August 02, 2017, 06:47:08 PM »

Offline chilidawg

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2009
  • Tommy Points: 261

[/quote]

What? I am in favor of playing the young guys. Just hate that we are trying to win now and develop young players.
[/quote]

So would you rather that we not try to win now, or not try to develop young players?

I think Danny and Brad have shown that it's possible to do both, and I think it's the best of both worlds.  Great time to be a C's fan.