Not as optimistic of this team as some

[moiso]

I'm not worried about gelling at all.  Around the league it seems like it's just a matter of putting the right players with the right coach.  Great teams go to the finals in their first year together plenty of times.  I don't think the Celtics were better last year because they gelled more than the previous years.  They added Horford and several of the players they already had improved.

[max215]

Let's just do a comparison

Irving > Thomas
Hayward > Horford
Horford > Bradley

That is the top 3 players, all are better than their counterpart last year

Let's look at the rest of the main rotation

Crowder, Smart, Johnson, Olynyk, Brown, Rozier vs. Smart, Brown, Rozier, Tatum, Morris, Baynes

I think that is much closer than you are really acknowledging.  Rozier, Smart and Brown should  be better than last year.  I think Morris and Baynes are better fits than Johnson and Olynyk, though obviously bring different things.  Crowder is definitely a better all around player than Tatum will be, but I do expect Tatum to be a better scorer and a guy that could drop 30 on any given night (that isn't Crowder's game).  So pretty close overall really, unless Smart, Brown, and Rozier don't progress or Tatum is just downright terrible. 

As for the deeper bench Jerekbo, Green, and Zeller had their moments and obviously would be better than a bunch of late round picks like Yabusele, Theis, and Ojeleye, but if you are winning or losing games on your deep bench, you are in trouble. 


That said, Boston is not going to beat Cleveland as the teams are presently constructed and if both teams are reasonably healthy.  Even without Thomas, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see the Lebron/Love led Cavs to beat Boston and end up in the Finals again (though it would be a pretty interesting series in that scenario).  And the Cavs now have that BKN pick they can use to upgrade their roster further (I think they are way more inclined to make a trade than Boston is utilizing the LAL pick).

As an asset? Of course. Going forward given IT's injury? Sure. As a comparison between the production of 2016-17 IT and 2017-18 Kyrie? You're baking in a TON of improvement from Kyrie.

[Evantime34]

I agree with the OP on the depth, I also agree that it will be difficult for Kyrie to replicate what IT did last year (a historic offensive season).

However I think there are two huge reasons to be optimistic that weren't in the original post.

1. Gordon Hayward is a top 20 player in the NBA. Sure losing depth hurt, but I don't think people fully grasp how much of an upgrade Hayward is over Crowder.

2. Development. I expect some of our young players to improve. Some of the players who make up the bench unit will presumably give us more than they did last season. On the aggregate we will get more from Jaylen, Rozier and Smart than we did last year.

3. Changing Roster. Ainge and Stevens have shown that they can turn players no one wants into good rotation pieces. If depth is an issue next season, I trust Brad to develop players to fill the holes we need on the bench. If those players aren't on the team yet the C's sure have the assets to get back end rotation pieces. If Stevens and Ainge can grab Evan Turner, Jordan Crawford, and others off the scrap heap and turn them into contributors, then I don't see why a decrease in depth to start the season means that the depth won't be just as good by the end of the year.

Honestly, I'm still sad about the IT trade. I don't like this much roster turnover. The Celtics play a ton of games before 2018 at a time when they are just finding themselves. I expect the C's to start off slow but by the end of the year this team will be head and shoulders better than last year's version.

[Green-18]

I thought that the OP presented a nice argument and well written post.  At the same time I think a lot of us became emotionally attached to the team because of their heart and character.  I am the first to admit that I am a sucker for teams that overachieve and play the right way.  One of the most gratifying aspects of being a sports fan is when you have gritty and likable group that maxes out its potential.

Our new team could definitely take a while to develop chemistry on the court.  With that being said we are significantly more talented and athletic across the board.  Assuming everyone buys in to Brad's system then what reason do we have to expect worse results?  Kyrie has already mentioned many times that he is anxious to become more of a pure PG and improve on the defensive end.  I don't think we can overstate the lack of structure in Cleveland.  Kyrie clearly has shown the ability to make important defensive plays in key spots during the playoffs.  My expectation is that he will give consistent effort on a nightly basis.  I don't believe the metrics tell the entire story.

The OP also mentioned our depth and bench as a major strength last season.  Our bench was solid because of the effort and consistency it gave on a nightly basis.  Brad isn't going to change his message to the bench just because our roster is more talented.  We know he is going to set his expectations clearly and that veterans like Horford will provide leadership.  Unless there is a fundamental change in attitude/effort then I don't see how the bench isn't better.  We have more length and athleticism which should lead to greater defensive versatility.  There is also much more upside on the offensive end of the court.  This will all take some time but the bench should be fine come playoff time.

Quite frankly this all boils down to the Celtics being a top notch organization.  Ownership, Danny, and Brad are all on the same page.  The message is consistent at all levels and we manage to avoid the negative drama that surrounds other teams.  I fully expect this new group to gel by the end of the season and pose a serious threat to the Cavs even if IT is fully healthy.   

[biggs]

I'm sorry you feel that way OP, but the reality is that last year's team had some serious issues, and ultimately overachieved.  As constructed, they were not going any further with that core. Add to that Bradley and IT requiring big contracts that we couldn't afford and you've got a recipe that requires alterations.

I agree that we lost depth with this roster overhaul, but I feel like this team was always built for a trade. Danny had a million contingency plans in place when we got our star, so expect guys like Semi and Nader getting some minutes.

We make take a slight step backwards this year as our team gels and the young guys get some experience, but with a weak Eastern conference we should be okay.

Personally, I love our new team, and we still have options moving forward. Don't worry bud, our new and improved team will grow and you, I promise

[Who]

The bench is young. They are not sure things because they are still in their early stages of development but I am optimistic overall. About the main bench players anyway.   

(1) Tatum = I think is ready to contribute as a rookie. He doesn't need to be a star or even a starter. Just a 15-25mpg role player. I think he will at least be an average bench SF as a rookie. Possibly an above average one.

(2) Baynes = good backup center

(3) Smart = I expect Brown to start in order to keep Smart on the bench. Give that youth another veteran to play alongside them. Give Smart more time on the ball rather than having to share with Kyrie and Hayward. And I rate Smart as one of the best bench players in the league so that is a big asset for the 2nd unit.

(4) Rozier = 3rd year for Rozier. I like his talent. He hasn't put it together consistently yet. I hope he is at least an average backup PG/SG next year. I would bet on that but not hugely confident about it.

So I look at it as:

Guard = Rozier = hopefully average
Guard = Smart = top bench player
Forward = Tatum = average to above average bench player
Center = Baynes = good backup center

That looks an above average bench unit to me. When first choice players are available.


End of bench is more variable -- how they will handle injuries.

(5) Rest of bench = I like the look of Theiss. I think he can be a good end of bench option. Not optimistic about Yabusele helping this season. His defense was awful from what I have seen on him. I think he will be glued to the end of the bench to start his career. Gerald Green is a fine 3rd string wing. He can shoot and put up points in a hurry. Semi will be useful if he can be consistent from 3. If not, they can get by without much from him. Do not like Larkin. I do like Kadeem Allen as defense-only 3rd string guard.

[keevsnick]

I agree with much of this, I think we'll likely win fewer games in the regular season this year than the past year even after accounting for the fact that the east has gotten even weaker. The kind of team we had last year was well one equipped to win regular season games, deep and just good enough to beat good teams. What I think Ainge did is drastically increase our upside in terms f playoff performance when the depth of a team matters far less and you need guys who can cerate one on one. We now have two of those players who will be in their prime for the next 5 seasons. We may not go as far in the playoffs this year because we'll be relying a lot on young guys like Tatum, Brown, Rozier to be part of a rotation, but long terms when those guys get a season or two more under their belts we'll be in better shape.

In short, if people are expecting us to win 56+ games and take the Cavs to 7 they may be disappointed, but after this year with some gelling and improvement from our young guys plus our naturally higher scoring upside I think we are in a better position.

[greece66]

I enjoyed Who's post and largely agree with it.

btw, I think Green is no longer with the team.

[mmmmm]

Let's just do a comparison

Irving > Thomas
Hayward > Horford
Horford > Bradley

That is the top 3 players, all are better than their counterpart last year

That's really bizarre math.   Why wouldn't we do that comparison like so:

Irving > Thomas (Today, with an injured Thomas.  Not necessarily last season.)
Horford == Horford
Hayward > Bradley

So really, it's not exactly a case where all three of our best players now are better than all three of our best players last year.   Horford is Horford.  Yes, he may play better with a year in this system.  But he'll also be a year older and the system around him will be with totally new teammates.  And being a 'glue' guy, a lot will be on his shoulders to make all these new parts work together.

Irving is an improvement over Thomas if Thomas is injured.  But he's not an improvement over the Thomas that played last year.  And it remains to be seen how long Thomas will be injured this year or if he'll be able to recover.

Hayward is, no argument from me, a big improvement over Avery.

So you are really looking at an improvement in at ONE of the 'big 3' spots over last year.

Now, I consider that a pretty significant improvement, actually.  Because having just one extra elite scoring option should be a massive help all by itself.

But it is silly to characterize that as having upgrades at all three of the 'three best players'.

Whether the rest of the rotation works out as better remains to be seen.  I firmly believe have a lot more _talent_ in the rest of the roster.  But they are desperately short on _experience_ and the obvious chemistry that last year's roster had.  Much of that lack of experience should be mitigated by the time the playoffs get here, but it will still be a thing.

Overall, because of Hayward and the aforementioned overall bump in talent, AND because more teams in the East are going to suck, I DO think this team will win more games than last year.  I'm down for about 56-58 wins.

But I can also understand a lot of the concerns being expressed.

And if Thomas does come back close to full strength by the time the playoffs get here, CLE if still going to look like a very tough wall to climb over.

[PhoSita]

Continuity and depth matter, especially for regular season wins.

The calculus behind the moves this summer was clear.  Ainge wanted to:

a) Add more top level talent, which raises the playoff ceiling

b) Get younger, which extends the window of the current core to remain very competitive.


Adding top talent and getting younger sacrificed continuity in a big way and also compromised the depth of experienced role players on the bench.

As a result, I agree, this team should struggle in the regular season compared to last year's team.



I think it's very possible they are a better playoff contender come April.  By then, assuming they're mostly healthy (esp Irving, Hayward, and Horford), they may be battle-tested enough to make a run.

However, I would note that last year's team did not exactly skate to the ECF.  This year's team could be a significantly better at playoff style basketball and still lose in the second round.

[Granath]

Let's just do a comparison

Irving > Thomas
Hayward > Horford
Horford > Bradley

That is the top 3 players, all are better than their counterpart last year

That's really bizarre math.   Why wouldn't we do that comparison like so:

Irving > Thomas (Today, with an injured Thomas.  Not necessarily last season.)
Horford == Horford
Hayward > Bradley

You're right, it's really just Hayward > Bradley. It was a bad way for Moranis to make a point but I think I might understand his logic here (God help me).

It's all about options on offense. Last year our #1 was IT. There really wasn't a #2 as Bradley/Horford (and one could argue Crowder) were both really a 3rd option type of player. This is really brought out in the stats. 29ppg for IT. Then Bradley was 16.3 (and declining all year after a hot start and 13.6 after the All Star break), Horford at 14 and Crowder at 13.9. When a guy like Crowder is that close to being the 2nd best option it shows a lack of offensive talent. This created a massive offensive problem and we saw that every time IT went to the bench. The offense would stagnate because no one else could really generate his own shot and it was easier for defenses to key on IT.

This year with Hayward it's a different story. We still have the straw that stirs the drink in Irving (it could have easily been a healthy IT instead) but now there's truly a 2nd option on offense. He's almost a 1(a) option at 22 points per game and is a guy who can create his own buckets. This in turn opens up things for both the #1 guy (Irving) and also helps open up everyone else. This only goes so far as there's only one ball on the court but here it truly is a case of a rising tide lifting all boats. So in a weird kind of way, it looks like this:

Irving = IT
Hayward >>> Bradley
Horford/Brown > Horfort/Crowder
 
Because Hayward being on the court may very well make Horford and Brown more effective offensively than Horford and Crowder. 

PS - don't sleep on Brown. I think by the end of the year he may very well be solidly the #3 option and Horford #4.

[Alleyoopster]

I'm sorry you feel that way OP, but the reality is that last year's team had some serious issues, and ultimately overachieved.  As constructed, they were not going any further with that core. Add to that Bradley and IT requiring big contracts that we couldn't afford and you've got a recipe that requires alterations.

I agree that we lost depth with this roster overhaul, but I feel like this team was always built for a trade. Danny had a million contingency plans in place when we got our star, so expect guys like Semi and Nader getting some minutes.

We make take a slight step backwards this year as our team gels and the young guys get some experience, but with a weak Eastern conference we should be okay.

Personally, I love our new team, and we still have options moving forward. Don't worry bud, our new and improved team will grow and you, I promise

TP...excellent perspective!

Count me as one who totally trashed the Kyrie trade. And, losing Kelly bothered me more than most posters here. On the other hand we were two levels below winning an NBA Championship. One level below Cleveland and another level beneath Golden State.

Danny knew he had to do something drastic to try and move the needle. Thus, he added some real scorers in Kyrie, Tatum and Hayward. Judging from Golden State's last 3 years it's evident you need shooters to win in this NBA climate.

Will this crew have a better record than last year's team? Perhaps not...we'll never know how last year's would have done if no trades were made. What we do know is that last year's team never would have won a Championship even if Isaiah were healthy. Maybe this team will have better odds. We'll have to wait and see....

[droopdog7]

Let's just do a comparison

Irving > Thomas
Hayward > Horford
Horford > Bradley

That is the top 3 players, all are better than their counterpart last year

That's really bizarre math.   Why wouldn't we do that comparison like so:

Irving > Thomas (Today, with an injured Thomas.  Not necessarily last season.)
Horford == Horford
Hayward > Bradley

So really, it's not exactly a case where all three of our best players now are better than all three of our best players last year.   Horford is Horford.  Yes, he may play better with a year in this system.  But he'll also be a year older and the system around him will be with totally new teammates.  And being a 'glue' guy, a lot will be on his shoulders to make all these new parts work together.

Irving is an improvement over Thomas if Thomas is injured.  But he's not an improvement over the Thomas that played last year.  And it remains to be seen how long Thomas will be injured this year or if he'll be able to recover.

Hayward is, no argument from me, a big improvement over Avery.

So you are really looking at an improvement in at ONE of the 'big 3' spots over last year.

Now, I consider that a pretty significant improvement, actually.  Because having just one extra elite scoring option should be a massive help all by itself.

But it is silly to characterize that as having upgrades at all three of the 'three best players'.

Whether the rest of the rotation works out as better remains to be seen.  I firmly believe have a lot more _talent_ in the rest of the roster.  But they are desperately short on _experience_ and the obvious chemistry that last year's roster had.  Much of that lack of experience should be mitigated by the time the playoffs get here, but it will still be a thing.

Overall, because of Hayward and the aforementioned overall bump in talent, AND because more teams in the East are going to suck, I DO think this team will win more games than last year.  I'm down for about 56-58 wins.

But I can also understand a lot of the concerns being expressed.

And if Thomas does come back close to full strength by the time the playoffs get here, CLE if still going to look like a very tough wall to climb over.

It not bizarre math at all.  What he's doing is lining up our best players in order, last year to this year.  So Kyrie versus IT at the top, then Hayward versus Al, and Al versus Avery.  An important element being that Al has gone from our second best player to our third.

[mctyson]

First let me say that I want the Celtics to be better than last year. I want them in the Finals competing for the championship. I want everything to go just right. I want those things, I just don't think it will happen.

I think your position is perfectly acceptable and rational but then you compare them to last year's team.  And that is where you are wrong.

There was a reason most everyone said the Celtics were the worst #1 seed in NBA history.  It wasn't because IT was 5'9" or because Amir Johnson was basically a corpse. 

It was because the point differential that Boston averaged for margin of victory was 2.6 points.  They were 8th in the league in offensive rating and 13th in defensive rating.  Basketball-Reference has them with a predicted win total of 48 - the same they had the previous year without the addition of Al Horford. They were an above average team that easily could have lost in the 1st round, or make the ECF.

You are making last year's team out to be some well-bulit, well-oiled machine, less top-heavy in talent but deep in talent on the bench.  Well that is what gets you a 45+ win NBA season, especially if you are well-coached and compete.  That does not get you a team that can dominate, blow teams out, and be a legitimate Finals contender.

Now it is perfectly legitimate to say the current team is not that as well, which is why your original paragraph is OK.  But saying that they should have kept a team similar to last year's is basically giving up on the season and in some ways the future.

[nickagneta]

Just a few things:

My pessimism is for this year. I think Ainge upgraded the talent but a lot of that talent is undeveloped. Long term, I love what he has done. I just don't see 53+ wins and a guarantee to the ECF nevermind beating Lebron to get to the Finals.

My take on the player order last year to this year:

Best player: IT>KI
2nd Best: Bradley<<Hayward
3rd Best: Horford=Horford
4th Best: Crowder>Brown or Morris, whoever you want to place here.
Rest: Last year >> This year due to experience and cohesion.