Develop younger players or sign proven vets for the minimum?

[CelticsJG]

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.

Dwyane Wade(Heat), Carmelo Anthony(Nuggets), Tim Duncan(Spurs), Shaq(Magic), Larry Bird(Celtics), Magic Johnson(Lakers), Curry(GSW). Chris Paul(Hornets), Dwight Howard(Magic), MJ(Bulls), LBJ(Cavs).
You think we can do both and I think we can't. That fine. Again NBA development is a lot trial and error and repetition. Hard to know what your limits are when you are short leash.

 I am moving on.

[mobilija]

Dwyane Wade(Heat), Carmelo Anthony(Nuggets), Tim Duncan(Spurs), Shaq(Magic), Larry Bird(Celtics), Magic Johnson(Lakers), Curry(GSW). Chris Paul(Hornets), Dwight Howard(Magic), MJ(Bulls), LBJ(Cavs).
You think we can do both and I think we can't. That fine. Again NBA development is a lot trial and error and repetition. Hard to know what your limits are when you are short leash.

 I am moving on.

If our young players are transcendent like your examples then they will get playing time and it will be A non-issue.  So far none of our youth has shown to be an instant or HOF talent. So let them develop in a systematic competitive fashion. It won't stunt their growth.

[Granath]

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.

Dwyane Wade(Heat), Carmelo Anthony(Nuggets), Tim Duncan(Spurs), Shaq(Magic), Larry Bird(Celtics), Magic Johnson(Lakers), Curry(GSW). Chris Paul(Hornets), Dwight Howard(Magic), MJ(Bulls), LBJ(Cavs).
You think we can do both and I think we can't. That fine. Again NBA development is a lot trial and error and repetition. Hard to know what your limits are when you are short leash.

 I am moving on.

I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make - that great players can't develop on good teams? If so, was Tim Duncan held back by playing on a Spurs team that had the same core group (Robinson, Elliott, Del Negro, Johnson) that won 59 games two years before? Did it hurt James Worthy to get picked by the NBA Championship winning Lakers in 1982? Did McHale suffer by getting chosen by the 61-win Celtics in 1981? Just because most great players are chosen by bad teams doesn't mean that players are hindered by being chosen by good teams.

There's no evidence of this whatsoever.  In fact, the opposite may be true. I can't find the link to the data right now but evidence showed that top 3 players chosen by winning teams on average in fact ended up with better careers than those who didn't. Of course, it's a small sample size but it certainly didn't support your point.

I think you believe that playing time is the only form of development. This isn't true at all. Players have to learn how to conduct themselves. They have to learn how to win in the NBA. They have to learn how to prepare their bodies and minds every day to go out and perform at their best. In short, they have to learn how to be a professional NBA basketball player. Players on losing teams have a much more difficult learning curve with these areas than those who aren't. They don't have strong locker rooms. They don't get to experience winning. They don't see what it takes to be a true professional. So while players on good teams aren't getting as much court time, they're learning intrinsic skills that help them to succeed in the long run. The players on the losing teams often develop their individual basketball skills but at the expense knowing how to best apply them on a good team. That's why young teams don't win titles - it's because they don't know how. That's an enormously valuable lesson and one our guys are being taught the day they walk on the practice floor.

[TheSundanceKid]

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.

Dwyane Wade(Heat), Carmelo Anthony(Nuggets), Tim Duncan(Spurs), Shaq(Magic), Larry Bird(Celtics), Magic Johnson(Lakers), Curry(GSW). Chris Paul(Hornets), Dwight Howard(Magic), MJ(Bulls), LBJ(Cavs).
You think we can do both and I think we can't. That fine. Again NBA development is a lot trial and error and repetition. Hard to know what your limits are when you are short leash.

 I am moving on.

I don't even know where to start with that list, aside from that it largely proves my point. Quite a few of those teams were good teams when the player was drafted, Spurs had a down year because of the Robinson injury for example. Some I wouldn't have called 'competing' although at least they made the playoffs. Tim Duncan is the perfect example of what I want to see though. Raised in a winning environment and one of the most perfect careers. The way a player should be developed.

[PaulP34]

We went and paid big bucks for Al Horford in order to lure in Kevin Durant but he chose Golden State.

So because we own Horford and didnt want to give up on him, we went out and got Gordon Hayward. Ainge Commits to win now but has the free picks to build for later as well. A very fortunate road to travel.

I can see one more big free agent next year or a big trade by the deadline. I dont see this roster winning a championship unless kwy injuries sideline Durant and Curry. We could possibly make the Finals though.

Ainge has 2 more tries at the top of the draft. Jaylen Brown will be an allstar, not MVP material.

Jayson Tatum has elite player potential maybe MVP one day.

Question is, whos next ? Whos gonna be the next great Celtic to get drafted ?

Marvin Bagley ?
Michael Porter ?
Bamba ?
Ayton ?
Bridges ?

Does Ainge get just one or two from this litter ?

What if ?

Ainge gets #1 pick over-all and Marvin Bagley III is let into college and ops to get drafted ?

Does he take him at #1 ?

What if,

Ainge gets #1 pick (Brooklyn)  and #3 pick (Lakers) ?

Does he trade for AD or does he think future and draft Bagley and ?

What if the Celtics 2022 roster is,

Marvin Bagley III - PF
Jayson Tatum - SF
Jaylen Brown - SG
DeAndre Ayton - C

And a future not none yet PG we all know IT gets old n slow by then.

Is that enough to be dominant ?

How long does Danny go with our core ?

Does he trade IT, Horford and Hayward in 2020 for more super picks ?

My minds going nuts...

[Somebody]

We went and paid big bucks for Al Horford in order to lure in Kevin Durant but he chose Golden State.

So because we own Horford and didnt want to give up on him, we went out and got Gordon Hayward. Ainge Commits to win now but has the free picks to build for later as well. A very fortunate road to travel.

I can see one more big free agent next year or a big trade by the deadline. I dont see this roster winning a championship unless kwy injuries sideline Durant and Curry. We could possibly make the Finals though.

Ainge has 2 more tries at the top of the draft. Jaylen Brown will be an allstar, not MVP material.

Jayson Tatum has elite player potential maybe MVP one day.

Question is, whos next ? Whos gonna be the next great Celtic to get drafted ?

Marvin Bagley ?
Michael Porter ?
Bamba ?
Ayton ?
Bridges ?

Does Ainge get just one or two from this litter ?

What if ?

Ainge gets #1 pick over-all and Marvin Bagley III is let into college and ops to get drafted ?

Does he take him at #1 ?

What if,

Ainge gets #1 pick (Brooklyn)  and #3 pick (Lakers) ?

Does he trade for AD or does he think future and draft Bagley and ?

What if the Celtics 2022 roster is,

Marvin Bagley III - PF
Jayson Tatum - SF
Jaylen Brown - SG
DeAndre Ayton - C

And a future not none yet PG we all know IT gets old n slow by then.

Is that enough to be dominant ?

How long does Danny go with our core ?

Does he trade IT, Horford and Hayward in 2020 for more super picks ?

My minds going nuts...

Um Marcus Smart is staring at you...he's no superstar but it's plausible to think that he can be a very good complimentary "star" with the potential to be something even more if he fixes h shot.

[Moranis]

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.

more than you would imagine including Magic and Bird who got all the minutes they could play immediately and on championship level teams. Sure the better players are often the higher draft picks which tend to go to bad trams  it that isn't always the case. And plenty of bad teams went from drafting their star to contending in 4ish seasons including the Bulls, Thunder, Cavs, Magic (with both Howard and Shaq), Miami (with Wade), and I'm sure there are others that was just off the top of my head.

[Moranis]

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.

Dwyane Wade(Heat), Carmelo Anthony(Nuggets), Tim Duncan(Spurs), Shaq(Magic), Larry Bird(Celtics), Magic Johnson(Lakers), Curry(GSW). Chris Paul(Hornets), Dwight Howard(Magic), MJ(Bulls), LBJ(Cavs).
You think we can do both and I think we can't. That fine. Again NBA development is a lot trial and error and repetition. Hard to know what your limits are when you are short leash.

 I am moving on.

I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make - that great players can't develop on good teams? If so, was Tim Duncan held back by playing on a Spurs team that had the same core group (Robinson, Elliott, Del Negro, Johnson) that won 59 games two years before? Did it hurt James Worthy to get picked by the NBA Championship winning Lakers in 1982? Did McHale suffer by getting chosen by the 61-win Celtics in 1981? Just because most great players are chosen by bad teams doesn't mean that players are hindered by being chosen by good teams.

There's no evidence of this whatsoever.  In fact, the opposite may be true. I can't find the link to the data right now but evidence showed that top 3 players chosen by winning teams on average in fact ended up with better careers than those who didn't. Of course, it's a small sample size but it certainly didn't support your point.

I think you believe that playing time is the only form of development. This isn't true at all. Players have to learn how to conduct themselves. They have to learn how to win in the NBA. They have to learn how to prepare their bodies and minds every day to go out and perform at their best. In short, they have to learn how to be a professional NBA basketball player. Players on losing teams have a much more difficult learning curve with these areas than those who aren't. They don't have strong locker rooms. They don't get to experience winning. They don't see what it takes to be a true professional. So while players on good teams aren't getting as much court time, they're learning intrinsic skills that help them to succeed in the long run. The players on the losing teams often develop their individual basketball skills but at the expense knowing how to best apply them on a good team. That's why young teams don't win titles - it's because they don't know how. That's an enormously valuable lesson and one our guys are being taught the day they walk on the practice floor.

all thise guys played as many minutes as they coukd handle and didnt have their minutes kept down because other players were on the roster.  It is about opportunity

[mobilija]

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.

Dwyane Wade(Heat), Carmelo Anthony(Nuggets), Tim Duncan(Spurs), Shaq(Magic), Larry Bird(Celtics), Magic Johnson(Lakers), Curry(GSW). Chris Paul(Hornets), Dwight Howard(Magic), MJ(Bulls), LBJ(Cavs).
You think we can do both and I think we can't. That fine. Again NBA development is a lot trial and error and repetition. Hard to know what your limits are when you are short leash.

 I am moving on.

I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make - that great players can't develop on good teams? If so, was Tim Duncan held back by playing on a Spurs team that had the same core group (Robinson, Elliott, Del Negro, Johnson) that won 59 games two years before? Did it hurt James Worthy to get picked by the NBA Championship winning Lakers in 1982? Did McHale suffer by getting chosen by the 61-win Celtics in 1981? Just because most great players are chosen by bad teams doesn't mean that players are hindered by being chosen by good teams.

There's no evidence of this whatsoever.  In fact, the opposite may be true. I can't find the link to the data right now but evidence showed that top 3 players chosen by winning teams on average in fact ended up with better careers than those who didn't. Of course, it's a small sample size but it certainly didn't support your point.

I think you believe that playing time is the only form of development. This isn't true at all. Players have to learn how to conduct themselves. They have to learn how to win in the NBA. They have to learn how to prepare their bodies and minds every day to go out and perform at their best. In short, they have to learn how to be a professional NBA basketball player. Players on losing teams have a much more difficult learning curve with these areas than those who aren't. They don't have strong locker rooms. They don't get to experience winning. They don't see what it takes to be a true professional. So while players on good teams aren't getting as much court time, they're learning intrinsic skills that help them to succeed in the long run. The players on the losing teams often develop their individual basketball skills but at the expense knowing how to best apply them on a good team. That's why young teams don't win titles - it's because they don't know how. That's an enormously valuable lesson and one our guys are being taught the day they walk on the practice floor.

all thise guys played as many minutes as they coukd handle and didnt have their minutes kept down because other players were on the roster.  It is about opportunity

If the player is good enough they will get the opportunity.

[Celtics4ever]

Good players will play regardless of the situation because most NBA coaches get fired after a few years of losing.  Cream always rises to the top.  McHale came to us and he played even though we were already a decent team. He came off the bench but he played.

BTW, Bird made his team good once he got there as a rookie.

Super-rookie Bird led Boston from 29 wins to 61 wins in 1979-80

https://www.celticsblog.com/2015/1/7/7507079/the-story-of-how-rookie-phenom-larry-bird-led-the-nbas-greatest

Same could be said of Duncan and LeBron to some extent.

[SHAQATTACK]

Good players will play regardless of the situation because most NBA coaches get fired after a few years of losing.  Cream always rises to the top.  McHale came to us and he played even though we were already a decent team. He came off the bench but he played.

BTW, Bird made his team good once he got there as a rookie.

Super-rookie Bird led Boston from 29 wins to 61 wins in 1979-80

https://www.celticsblog.com/2015/1/7/7507079/the-story-of-how-rookie-phenom-larry-bird-led-the-nbas-greatest

Same could be said of Duncan and LeBron to some extent.

Tp

[Moranis]

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.

Dwyane Wade(Heat), Carmelo Anthony(Nuggets), Tim Duncan(Spurs), Shaq(Magic), Larry Bird(Celtics), Magic Johnson(Lakers), Curry(GSW). Chris Paul(Hornets), Dwight Howard(Magic), MJ(Bulls), LBJ(Cavs).
You think we can do both and I think we can't. That fine. Again NBA development is a lot trial and error and repetition. Hard to know what your limits are when you are short leash.

 I am moving on.

I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make - that great players can't develop on good teams? If so, was Tim Duncan held back by playing on a Spurs team that had the same core group (Robinson, Elliott, Del Negro, Johnson) that won 59 games two years before? Did it hurt James Worthy to get picked by the NBA Championship winning Lakers in 1982? Did McHale suffer by getting chosen by the 61-win Celtics in 1981? Just because most great players are chosen by bad teams doesn't mean that players are hindered by being chosen by good teams.

There's no evidence of this whatsoever.  In fact, the opposite may be true. I can't find the link to the data right now but evidence showed that top 3 players chosen by winning teams on average in fact ended up with better careers than those who didn't. Of course, it's a small sample size but it certainly didn't support your point.

I think you believe that playing time is the only form of development. This isn't true at all. Players have to learn how to conduct themselves. They have to learn how to win in the NBA. They have to learn how to prepare their bodies and minds every day to go out and perform at their best. In short, they have to learn how to be a professional NBA basketball player. Players on losing teams have a much more difficult learning curve with these areas than those who aren't. They don't have strong locker rooms. They don't get to experience winning. They don't see what it takes to be a true professional. So while players on good teams aren't getting as much court time, they're learning intrinsic skills that help them to succeed in the long run. The players on the losing teams often develop their individual basketball skills but at the expense knowing how to best apply them on a good team. That's why young teams don't win titles - it's because they don't know how. That's an enormously valuable lesson and one our guys are being taught the day they walk on the practice floor.

all thise guys played as many minutes as they coukd handle and didnt have their minutes kept down because other players were on the roster.  It is about opportunity

If the player is good enough they will get the opportunity.

Brown was good enough last year to play a lot more minutes, he showed that when Bradley missed some games at the end of the year.  Brown's minutes were truncated because he had veterans in front of him.  The same thing will likely happen with Tatum this year. 

Players just get better faster with more playing time.  This isn't some weird statement.  The more you play, the better you get and the faster you get there.  You learn how to play through mistakes, you get a better feel for the game, you learn the tricks of the trade faster, etc.  Most players will eventually reach whatever their ceiling is, but if they don't get the playing time initially it just takes a lot longer, and when you only have a young player for a 4 year rookie contract before you have to pay them, you don't always have the time to wait to figure out how good a player is.  Brown has already indicated he expects significant minutes this year.  Jackson didn't work out for Boston because he didn't want to come to a team loaded with wings. 

Boston can't just keep plodding along trying to win and trying to develop young players.  It just doesn't work and ends up closing both windows.  If Boston wants to win now, then it should trade some assets for a player that can make Boston a legit contender around the Horford, Thomas, Hayward window.  If Boston thinks its best title avenue is building around Brown, Tatum, and the future picks, then it should make the moves that maximize that window and allows the young guys to play as many minutes as they can.  This team should not enter the playoffs looking like it does now, it needs to pick a direction and move towards that direction.

[TheSundanceKid]

Good players will play regardless of the situation because most NBA coaches get fired after a few years of losing.  Cream always rises to the top.  McHale came to us and he played even though we were already a decent team. He came off the bench but he played.

BTW, Bird made his team good once he got there as a rookie.

Super-rookie Bird led Boston from 29 wins to 61 wins in 1979-80

https://www.celticsblog.com/2015/1/7/7507079/the-story-of-how-rookie-phenom-larry-bird-led-the-nbas-greatest

Same could be said of Duncan and LeBron to some extent.

And there in lies the truth. The HOFers who got drafted by good teams played roles from the get go because they were good enough for it. The best players play and if you aren't playing as much as you like, get better in practice, show the coach you can learn when he teaches, earn his trust.

Will Lonzo have to earn the coaches trust in LA or will he just get whatever he wants? What is he learning here about structure or accountability? I think that will actually stunt his growth because he won't have had those experiences in a winning environment that teach you what is necessary.

Even taking Lebron, it took him a long time to figure out how to win in this league, he had to learn to lead by himself, learn to overcome loss by himself. In the end the place where he really learned how to win was alongside someone who had already been through it, Dwayne Wade.

Tim Duncan had the benefit of David Robinson as a leader early in his career, he had those learning experiences early on and developed into a leader himself.

I already see Jaylen taking on some of the learning from guys like Horford, Jae and the like. That video of him playing football with Yab, finding a vet like Butler to play with over the summer. By no means do I compare him to Tim Duncan but its good that he is absorbing the learning from the guys around him.

Brown was good enough last year to play a lot more minutes, he showed that when Bradley missed some games at the end of the year.  Brown's minutes were truncated because he had veterans in front of him.  The same thing will likely happen with Tatum this year. 

He had ups and downs throughout the year. He has now had a taste of starting in the NBA, the guy who was in front of him is gone and there is a starting spot to fight over. You know he'll be hungry for it. My take is he'll work a lot harder to get it than if he were just given it.

I guess we have very different views on his development. I think he's already come on incredibly well both on and off the court, I see him earning those extra minutes this year and becoming part of the core 8 of the rotation.

[mobilija]

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.

Dwyane Wade(Heat), Carmelo Anthony(Nuggets), Tim Duncan(Spurs), Shaq(Magic), Larry Bird(Celtics), Magic Johnson(Lakers), Curry(GSW). Chris Paul(Hornets), Dwight Howard(Magic), MJ(Bulls), LBJ(Cavs).
You think we can do both and I think we can't. That fine. Again NBA development is a lot trial and error and repetition. Hard to know what your limits are when you are short leash.

 I am moving on.

I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make - that great players can't develop on good teams? If so, was Tim Duncan held back by playing on a Spurs team that had the same core group (Robinson, Elliott, Del Negro, Johnson) that won 59 games two years before? Did it hurt James Worthy to get picked by the NBA Championship winning Lakers in 1982? Did McHale suffer by getting chosen by the 61-win Celtics in 1981? Just because most great players are chosen by bad teams doesn't mean that players are hindered by being chosen by good teams.

There's no evidence of this whatsoever.  In fact, the opposite may be true. I can't find the link to the data right now but evidence showed that top 3 players chosen by winning teams on average in fact ended up with better careers than those who didn't. Of course, it's a small sample size but it certainly didn't support your point.

I think you believe that playing time is the only form of development. This isn't true at all. Players have to learn how to conduct themselves. They have to learn how to win in the NBA. They have to learn how to prepare their bodies and minds every day to go out and perform at their best. In short, they have to learn how to be a professional NBA basketball player. Players on losing teams have a much more difficult learning curve with these areas than those who aren't. They don't have strong locker rooms. They don't get to experience winning. They don't see what it takes to be a true professional. So while players on good teams aren't getting as much court time, they're learning intrinsic skills that help them to succeed in the long run. The players on the losing teams often develop their individual basketball skills but at the expense knowing how to best apply them on a good team. That's why young teams don't win titles - it's because they don't know how. That's an enormously valuable lesson and one our guys are being taught the day they walk on the practice floor.

all thise guys played as many minutes as they coukd handle and didnt have their minutes kept down because other players were on the roster.  It is about opportunity

If the player is good enough they will get the opportunity.

Brown was good enough last year to play a lot more minutes, he showed that when Bradley missed some games at the end of the year.  Brown's minutes were truncated because he had veterans in front of him.  The same thing will likely happen with Tatum this year. 

Players just get better faster with more playing time.  This isn't some weird statement.  The more you play, the better you get and the faster you get there.  You learn how to play through mistakes, you get a better feel for the game, you learn the tricks of the trade faster, etc.  Most players will eventually reach whatever their ceiling is, but if they don't get the playing time initially it just takes a lot longer, and when you only have a young player for a 4 year rookie contract before you have to pay them, you don't always have the time to wait to figure out how good a player is.  Brown has already indicated he expects significant minutes this year.  Jackson didn't work out for Boston because he didn't want to come to a team loaded with wings. 

Boston can't just keep plodding along trying to win and trying to develop young players.  It just doesn't work and ends up closing both windows.  If Boston wants to win now, then it should trade some assets for a player that can make Boston a legit contender around the Horford, Thomas, Hayward window.  If Boston thinks its best title avenue is building around Brown, Tatum, and the future picks, then it should make the moves that maximize that window and allows the young guys to play as many minutes as they can.  This team should not enter the playoffs looking like it does now, it needs to pick a direction and move towards that direction.

Brown's minutes were truncated bc he had better players in front of him. Not bc they were veterans. Players that contributed to winning more. If Brown were transcendent like Bird or Duncan he would get the playing time.

Maybe if he was force fed minutes he would develop faster as you say, but maybe he wouldn't develope to his highest ceiling with out the role modeling and having to earn his minutes. Impossible to know definitively.

And I would hardly say Boston is "plodding along". I'm just happy to be having my cake and eating it too. Competitive team on the threshold of being a contender and developing young exciting talent at the same time. Seems like the best of both worlds to me....  lots of hope for several reasons.

[Moranis]

We went and paid big bucks for Al Horford in order to lure in Kevin Durant but he chose Golden State.

So because we own Horford and didnt want to give up on him, we went out and got Gordon Hayward. Ainge Commits to win now but has the free picks to build for later as well. A very fortunate road to travel.

I can see one more big free agent next year or a big trade by the deadline. I dont see this roster winning a championship unless kwy injuries sideline Durant and Curry. We could possibly make the Finals though.

Ainge has 2 more tries at the top of the draft. Jaylen Brown will be an allstar, not MVP material.

Jayson Tatum has elite player potential maybe MVP one day.

Question is, whos next ? Whos gonna be the next great Celtic to get drafted ?

Marvin Bagley ?
Michael Porter ?
Bamba ?
Ayton ?
Bridges ?

Does Ainge get just one or two from this litter ?

What if ?

Ainge gets #1 pick over-all and Marvin Bagley III is let into college and ops to get drafted ?

Does he take him at #1 ?

What if,

Ainge gets #1 pick (Brooklyn)  and #3 pick (Lakers) ?

Does he trade for AD or does he think future and draft Bagley and ?

What if the Celtics 2022 roster is,

Marvin Bagley III - PF
Jayson Tatum - SF
Jaylen Brown - SG
DeAndre Ayton - C

And a future not none yet PG we all know IT gets old n slow by then.

Is that enough to be dominant ?

How long does Danny go with our core ?

Does he trade IT, Horford and Hayward in 2020 for more super picks ?

My minds going nuts...

Um Marcus Smart is staring at you...he's no superstar but it's plausible to think that he can be a very good complimentary "star" with the potential to be something even more if he fixes h shot.

the only way Marcus Smart is a Celtic after next summer is if Thomas is not