The Celtics and Building a Contender - Roster Crunch.

nighthob · Dec 1, 2015

This is an entire roster of 6th through 9th men. So there isn't really a crunch in any meaningful sense of the word. All the players are on reasonable deals and any one of them can be moved easily to make space for any draft picks coming in should Ainge prefer the available draftee to the guy on the roster. About the only player they have with starter/all star potential is Smart. And even he might be more high level defensive roleplayer.

nighthob · Dec 1, 2015

Honestly some of these guys might not be here after the trade deadline if Ainge can exploit some teams' needs for better depth players for quality assets in the run-up.

Eddie Jurak · Dec 1, 2015

nighthob said:
This is an entire roster of 6th through 9th men.

That's absurd. An entire roster of 6th-9th men is sure bet to be a lottery team, probably one that vies for #1 pick. These Celtics, on the other hand, are basically a lock to reach the playoffs. That doesn't happen with an entire roster that isn't good enough to start anywhere else. They are short on high end talent, for sure, but writing them off as not having a single NBA starter is just ridiculous. 2 years ago when they were a bottom feeder, OK. But they are now clearly an above average team.

HomeRunBaker · Dec 1, 2015

Eddie Jurak said:
That's absurd. An entire roster of 6th-9th men is sure bet to be a lottery team, probably one that vies for #1 pick. These Celtics, on the other hand, are basically a lock to reach the playoffs. That doesn't happen with an entire roster that isn't good enough to start anywhere else. They are short on high end talent, for sure, but writing them off as not having a single NBA starter is just ridiculous. 2 years ago when they were a bottom feeder, OK. But they are now clearly an above average team.

Collection of 4th-9th men then? Avery could be a 3rd on a good team, Smart and Avery high end role players......that's about all I see as far as high end. Nobody on this roster is going to be blocking anyone coming in put it that way.

wutang112878 · Dec 1, 2015

The way I see it, the Celtics have probably the deepest roster in the NBA and I agree with sox's general premise that its time to make a 3 for 1 or a few 2 for 1 type of trades. This team needs quality over quantity in a big way and, as sox mentioned, it has plenty of draft assets to refill the quantity cupboard in the near future.

That leads us to the who are your keepers and when I look at a young rebuilding team I use the lens of 'who can play a significant role the next time this team wins the title'. So when I think of the next title worthy Celtics team: Smart cant be your best or 2nd best player, but he would be an excellent 3rd wheel. His game isnt in the classic mold of a 1 or 2 but his defense is so elite that he would be an incredibly useful asset on a title team. I think Thomas could be your 4th or 5th best guy and he could continue to come off the bench and give your starters rest or he could be a starter but only as your 4th or 5th best. I'm not sure if Hunter could be a starter on a title team, but I'm pretty sure he could be an incredibly valuable bench piece because his shooting and ability to stretch a defense would be huge. I think his ceiling could be Kyle Korver. Amir is a guy who could play the James Posey role on a title team as well.

As for the rest, as long as we get better quality talent and decent value back (like 6 nickels for a quarter but not 5 nickels for a dime) I'm fine trading all of them and I wouldnt have to think hard about it. I'd even trade any of the 4 guys I mentioned if it would get you the 1st or 2nd best player on a title team. So I think Danny is sleeping like a baby because he can go in any direction he wants with this roster. Maybe you trade 3 guys for another Thomas like acquisition, or maybe you trade most of your young assets for your alpha dog. He has absolute flexibility to do whatever he wants, its really rather amazing.

bowiac · Dec 1, 2015

I disagree that Smart can't be your 2nd best player. I agree he's not there yet, and I am troubled by this injury history, but he's already such a good defender, and has shown enough on the offensive end that I don't see why he can't be pretty good there too. In the modern NBA, perimeter D is a big deal.

The Celtics are incredibly deep, but it's kind of unclear to me who their 2nd best trade asset is on the roster right now. Is it Thomas? Crowder? Sullinger has probably been their best player and is young.

Eddie Jurak · Dec 1, 2015

HomeRunBaker said:
Collection of 4th-9th men then? Avery could be a 3rd on a good team, Smart and Avery high end role players......that's about all I see as far as high end. Nobody on this roster is going to be blocking anyone coming in put it that way.

Put 2008 vintage Garnett and Pierce on this team and you have a better team than the title winning 2007-08 Celtics.

Koufax · Dec 1, 2015

I'd view Smart, Bradley, Sullinger, Thomas and Olynyk as keepers. The Celtics would probably like to hang on to Turner and Hunter but would gladly package them in the right 3 for 1 deal. In fact, they'd somewhat more reluctantly package Sullinger and/or Olynyk if a premier big man came our way.

The other teams don't seem to covet the Celtics draft picks so much, so I think that the first rounders will all end up on the roster or get stashed in Portland, and the Philly second rounder may as well. The other 4 second rounders will net the team close to nothing. Perhaps Golden State or Cleveland will trade their first round pick for all 4 second rounders, perhaps not.

The others currently on the roster are roster filler. Nice players, but they can lop off any 4 of them, replace them with first round talent acquired through the draft and improve as that new talent grows up. Maybe one of those picks will be a superstar. If so, then the experiment will have succeeded. If not, we're stuck in the middle.

Edit - added Thomas as a keeper. Stupid oversight.

Eddie Jurak · Dec 1, 2015

bowiac said:
The Celtics are incredibly deep, but it's kind of unclear to me who their 2nd best trade asset is on the roster right now. Is it Thomas? Crowder? Sullinger has probably been their best player and is young.

The interesting question with Sullinger is how much are you willing to pay him. Will he get a max deal as a free agent?

Cellar-Door · Dec 1, 2015

Eddie Jurak said:
The interesting question with Sullinger is how much are you willing to pay him. Will he get a max deal as a free agent?

I wouldn't, but if he kept up this pace it's a reasonable argument to say he's as good as, if not better than, Greg Monroe who got maxed. Max will be bigger this year, but it's still a year before the big jump.

wutang112878 · Dec 1, 2015

bowiac said:
I disagree that Smart can't be your 2nd best player. I agree he's not there yet, and I am troubled by this injury history, but he's already such a good defender, and has shown enough on the offensive end that I don't see why he can't be pretty good there too. In the modern NBA, perimeter D is a big deal.

The Celtics are incredibly deep, but it's kind of unclear to me who their 2nd best trade asset is on the roster right now. Is it Thomas? Crowder? Sullinger has probably been their best player and is young.

When I think of your #2 thats a guy that should average around 20ppg and be enough of a scoring threat to take pressure off the #1 and make the team better. I just cant see Smart ever making an offensive impact like that and get to the point where he can create on his own and the opponent is genuinely worried about letting him do that. Say you paired him with Durant and the opponent is doubling Durant every play, is Smart ever going to be offensively skilled enough to make the opponent pay for that strategy? Based on what I've seen so far, I dont think so. But today if someone does that to OKC, Westbrook makes them pay.

Now perhaps we need to have a different discussion on the mold of your 2nd best player. Can a player be your #2 guy without being a true offensive threat if he is an elite defender? I think thats true in very unique situations like say in San Antonio with their depth and team play I know Pop could make that work. But short of that, I cant think of a scenario where the #2 isnt an offensive threat and the team still has enough offensive so that isnt a fatal flaw.

As for the second best asset, I think its Thomas. He is young, has a great contract and is very productive. Then probably Crowder who has a good contract and has showed some impressive growth. Then Sully because Sully's ceiling is higher than either of those guys but there is also a very good chance he eats himself out of the league in 2 years which should put a scare into even the stupidest GMs.

bowiac · Dec 1, 2015

wutang112878 said:
Now perhaps we need to have a different discussion on the mold of your 2nd best player. Can a player be your #2 guy without being a true offensive threat if he is an elite defender? I think thats true in very unique situations like say in San Antonio with their depth and team play I know Pop could make that work. But short of that, I cant think of a scenario where the #2 isnt an offensive threat and the team still has enough offensive so that isnt a fatal flaw.

I could have sworn we just saw a team win the title with their 2nd best player averaging 12 points per game. Or the year before, who was the Spurs' second-best player? I'd say it was Kawhi, who averaged under 13 per game. Who was the second best player on the Mavs team that won? You're going to tell me it wasn't Chandler (10 points per game)? Was it Marion? Kidd?

nighthob · Dec 2, 2015

Eddie Jurak said:
That's absurd. An entire roster of 6th-9th men is sure bet to be a lottery team, probably one that vies for #1 pick.

Not really, no. In fact those teams tend to finish around .500 on a regular basis. Take a look at Morey's pre-Harden Houston as an example of this. The teams that vie for the #1 pick regularly have bad starters and worse depth players. Or are, like the Sixers, composed entirely of kids of varying quality (mostly bad in Philly's case). Boston's best players at the moment are a 5'7" combo guard and a 6'2" shooting guard that needs to defend the PG spot due to size. They are really great sixth men. But not what you want in the starting lineup. The next two are defensive roleplayers, Smart might one day be more than that, but he isn't now.

nighthob · Dec 2, 2015

Eddie Jurak said:
Put 2008 vintage Garnett and Pierce on this team and you have a better team than the title winning 2007-08 Celtics.

I mean yes, add two of the top 20 scorers all time in their prime, and certified top 10 players in the NBA, and the Celtics are title contenders. See the Oklahoma City Thunder as an example of this.

ALiveH · Dec 2, 2015

I think that absolutely the C's have about 4-6 guys who could be #4-5 starters on a championship team today. Even championship teams regularly have a couple guys in the starting lineup who are role player / specialist types. I think most agree with your overall point that we have excess solid depth, but to me there's a clear distinction between saying we have a bunch of #6-9 guys and a bunch of #4-7 guys. Saying we have a bunch of 6-9s implies that even adding 2-3 superstars wouldn't make this team contenders. I think that's clearly not the case. As you said yourself, adding 2 superstars in their prime would make us a contender.

Eddie Jurak · Dec 2, 2015

nighthob said:
Not really, no. In fact those teams tend to finish around .500 on a regular basis. Take a look at Morey's pre-Harden Houston as an example of this. The teams that vie for the #1 pick regularly have bad starters and worse depth players. Or are, like the Sixers, composed entirely of kids of varying quality (mostly bad in Philly's case). Boston's best players at the moment are a 5'7" combo guard and a 6'2" shooting guard that needs to defend the PG spot due to size. They are really great sixth men. But not what you want in the starting lineup. The next two are defensive roleplayers, Smart might one day be more than that, but he isn't now.

if the C's whole roster is 6th to 9th men, then you are in effect saying that they don't have a single player who deserves to start in the NBA. Not a one. I just think that's ridiculous. And, excluding their star players, almost every other team has a handful of guys who are better than anyone on the Celtics.

I just don't see it. Yes they lack stars, which they will eventually need if they are going to win another title. But the supporting cast is fine, not a problem at all.

nighthob · Dec 2, 2015

Eddie Jurak said:
if the C's whole roster is 6th to 9th men, then you are in effect saying that they don't have a single player who deserves to start in the NBA.

No, what I'm saying is that they have an entire roster full of guys that are great bench players, but no complete players anywhere on the roster. They have wings that can play defense but aren't terribly offensive, they have guys that can play offense that either shouldn't be starting or are of such limited utility there are a handful of teams they could start for. The fact that Kelly Olynyk could start for the 76ers doesn't make him more than a fungible player.

nighthob · Dec 2, 2015

ALiveH said:
Saying we have a bunch of 6-9s implies that even adding 2-3 superstars wouldn't make this team contenders.

Are you saying the Thunder aren't contenders? Because I am going to have to disagree there.

bowiac · Dec 2, 2015

I don't understand - are you saying good defensive wings with limited offensive games don't start for good teams?

luckiestman · Dec 2, 2015

nighthob said:
Are you saying the Thunder aren't contenders? Because I am going to have to disagree there.

You do realize there are 5 starters right. When you say we only have 6-9th men but then say 2 stars could make us a contender, well... Don't you see the obvious contradiction. I read your posts, so I know you know more about actual game play than I do but you can't just make up math.

wutang112878 · Dec 2, 2015

bowiac said:
I could have sworn we just saw a team win the title with their 2nd best player averaging 12 points per game. Or the year before, who was the Spurs' second-best player? I'd say it was Kawhi, who averaged under 13 per game. Who was the second best player on the Mavs team that won? You're going to tell me it wasn't Chandler (10 points per game)? Was it Marion? Kidd?

The first team that you didnt name, did you mean Golden State??? Thompson averaged 21 last season. The Mavs are certainly an exception to the rule, just as the 04 Pistons were as well. I think these outlier type champions happen about once every 10 years, so I dont want to build my team based on that philosophy.

Now the Spurs are a different animal altogether but they have 2 very unique aspects to their organization. First off is Duncan who for a very long time was their best player and is the rare breed of alpha dog that is also incredibly unselfish. In addition they have Pop who is probably one of the best coaches ever, and the two of them, long ago, established a philosophy where their level of team play is so incredible that you would think that Hoosiers was based off of them. To really implement that style of play and get everyone to buy into it to the point that the team can indeed be a contender while playing like that, I really do believe you need the coach and the team play alpha dog, I just dont think it works long-term if you have just 1 of the 2. With Stevens I actually think we have a coach who can indeed duplicate the Spurs team play because we are seeing him do that now. But that team player alpha dog is the rarest of the NBA breeds. KG was in that mold as well, but can you think of any other superstars that were in that mold?? I really cant think of any others in recent history other than KG and Duncan. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that superstar to come our way and thats why I dont want to build my team around the assumption that we get him.

luckiestman · Dec 2, 2015

wutang112878 said:
The first team that you didnt name, did you mean Golden State??? Thompson averaged 21 last season. The Mavs are certainly an exception to the rule, just as the 04 Pistons were as well. I think these outlier type champions happen about once every 10 years, so I dont want to build my team based on that philosophy.

Thompson is not their second best player is his point I think. Green is.

bowiac · Dec 2, 2015

I was referring to Draymond Green with Golden State. This is a bit circular, in that presumably you're going to argue Klay was the second best player: he averaged way more points than Green did after all! I don't value points per game as much and value defense more than you, so I think Green was the 2nd best player (and not particularly close), and we've gotten nowhere.

I can't parse your alpha dog/team player/Spurs point.

nighthob · Dec 2, 2015

luckiestman said:
You do realize there are 5 starters right. When you say we only have 6-9th men but then say 2 stars could make us a contender, well... Don't you see the obvious contradiction. I read your posts, so I know you know more about actual game play than I do but you can't just make up math.

Two top ten NBA players make every team a contender. Full stop. You would need to field a team full of NCAA washouts for your two top ten players not to put you in contention. So when people say "If you add two top ten players to this roster it's a contendah!!!" Well, yeah. No shit. But the thread's about Danny's "sleepless nights" because of the "roster crunch". They have a roster full of fungible players. I don't think he's losing any sleep as they're all pretty much replaceable. The answer to the question "Which guys are the keepers?" is "Whoever is left when you find your superstars."

The only real danger is signing them as they come off their rookie deals and getting stuck with them all. (This is the dilemma the Magic face as I don't think they have a superstar on that roster, though I do think Skiles is the perfect coach for that team.)

bowiac · Dec 2, 2015

The Clippers are really putting the test to your theory that two top ten players makes you a contender. I think Sullinger, Thomas, Smart, and maybe soon Crowder, would also all start of play close to starter minutes for some top teams, but that's kind of getting afield from the point of this thread.

Who is the kind of player they need to be targeting however - other than a true start like Boogie. Is it Danilo? Is there someone else?

nighthob · Dec 2, 2015

If finishing with a top five record in all of the NBA isn't contending I don't know what to say.

bowiac · Dec 2, 2015

I was referring to this year, when they've started featuring Austin Rivers, Lance Stephenson, and Paul Pierce, while Jamal Crawford's corpse has begun festering.

luckiestman · Dec 2, 2015

Who are the top 10 players? Is this close:

Curry
Lebron
Brow
Westbrook
Durant
CP3
Blake
Harden
Kawhi
Paul George

nighthob · Dec 2, 2015

luckiestman said:
Who are the top 10 players? Is this close:

Curry
Lebron
Brow
Westbrook
Durant
CP3
Blake
Harden
Kawhi
Paul George

Harden belongs nowhere near a top ten list this year. He's been all dog. And I say this as a Rockets' fan. I would put Boogie, Butler and Horford ahead of him.

Devizier · Dec 2, 2015

The problem with a three-for-one idea is that there are few contenders with depth that's bad enough to make such a deal feasible. And those teams have nothing worthwhile to send back.

Eddie Jurak · Dec 2, 2015

Devizier said:
The problem with a three-for-one idea is that there are few contenders with depth that's bad enough to make such a deal feasible. And those teams have nothing worthwhile to send back.

Yeah. More likely, Ainge might be able to dump individual guys for picks to a contender who loses a key non-star to an injury.

wutang112878 · Dec 3, 2015

bowiac said:
I was referring to Draymond Green with Golden State. This is a bit circular, in that presumably you're going to argue Klay was the second best player: he averaged way more points than Green did after all! I don't value points per game as much and value defense more than you, so I think Green was the 2nd best player (and not particularly close), and we've gotten nowhere.

I can't parse your alpha dog/team player/Spurs point.

You are right my initial reaction was to go to Thompson. But I think I could modify my plan, your 2nd best player could be better defensively than offensively but you need to have a starter who requires enough defensive attention from the opponent to take some heat of your #1 So say we got a real #1, Smart was your #2 and we had a modern day Ray Allen as our #3 player, then yes I think that could work. So I guess I agree with your original point and I also think I'm just coming to the realization that however you build a title team its just really complicated and you always seem to need a very unique and special mix of players.

As for SA and the whole team play thing. If you tried to build their team play around Kobe or Shaq or Durant or Iverson, I dont think you are getting the same type of team play. Pierce is actually a great example here. Early in his tenure Doc tried to get Pierce to defer more and be more of a play maker than a scorer and he and Doc really clashed over the topic. Fast forward a few years and the Celtics add KG and the same coach gets them to have the Ubuntu and got both Pierce and Allen to accept taking fewer shots for the good of the team. Same coach, same organization but with a different leader who really changed the whole culture of the organization. Thats why I think you need both.

ALiveH · Dec 3, 2015

We have actually become an attractive franchise for the superstars who are primarily motivated by winning. They see what we see - a great coach who gets the most out of his players; a hungry aggressive GM; and a roster full of very solid team players waiting for 1-2 alphas to step in.

Horford, Conley & Durant are all UFA, still on the right side of 30 and very good players. Could easily be #1 or #2 on a contender. All 3 should be targets (yes i know low probability we get one of them but have to try).

Trade targets:
Dwight Howard is still a very good player, only 29 & next year is a potential disgruntled pending FA playing on a loser.
Harden & Cousins are 1-2 years away from being potentially disgruntled pending FAs playing on losers.

nighthob · Dec 3, 2015

Harden is already so disgruntled that I'm not sure he finishes the year in Houston. He's killing them right now.

Cellar-Door · Dec 3, 2015

James Harden isn't a player you want as your star. He made a 1 year effort to improve his defense because he was made fun of on twitter. He then follows it up by spending the summer partying and trying to increase his brand instead of working. Comes into camp out of shape, and has made zero effort defensively all season. He needs to score 40+ points just to have a chance to offset the damage he does by not defending and screwing up both rotations and rebounding/box out assignments.

nighthob · Dec 3, 2015

As a Rockets' fan I want him out of Houston. As a Boston fan I want him no where near this team.

luckiestman · Dec 3, 2015

nighthob said:
As a Rockets' fan I want him out of Houston. As a Boston fan I want him no where near this team.

I called Harden softer than memory foam here one time so I'm right there with you.

Blacken · Dec 3, 2015

The idea that one wouldn't want James Harden on your team is insane. It's the same thing as Cousins or any of the other "problem" players: the opportunity to maybe-just-maybe realize new value from a player who's that good is something that a team at the bottom or in the middle should never, ever turn down. Especially when you have a surfeit of trash and just-above-trash to throw around, plus a ton of picks.

luckiestman · Dec 3, 2015

Blacken said:
The idea that one wouldn't want James Harden on your team is insane. It's the same thing as Cousins or any of the other "problem" players: the opportunity to maybe-just-maybe realize new value from a player who's that good is something that a team at the bottom or in the middle should never, ever turn down. Especially when you have a surfeit of trash and just-above-trash to throw around, plus a ton of picks.

I don't like watching him play. I don't know why. It isn't because he doesn't defend because Damian Lillard is one of my favorite non Celtics to watch and he doesn't exactly play like Tony Allen out there.

bowiac · Dec 4, 2015

The Rockets aren't trading Harden, and the Celtics aren't turning down Harden.

ALiveH · Dec 4, 2015

On Harden, I agree it's unlikely that Houston trades him and in the right situation he can be a huge net positive. There are a bunch of players on the current Cs that are much better on O than on D or vice versa and Brad finds a way to make it work really well. Part of that who plays together best and part of that is keeping everyone's minutes down so they expend more energy on both ends.

Anyway, Horford or Conley would be huge. Horford seems happy & likely to re-sign with Atlanta if they give him a full max deal. Conley seems unlikely to get the max & might be starting to look around with Memphis no longer looking like a contender, Z-bo showing his age @ 34 and Gasol now 30.

HomeRunBaker · Dec 4, 2015

bowiac said:
The Rockets aren't trading Harden, and the Celtics aren't turning down Harden.

And the only FA coming here are ones we pay up into the next tier. Everyone will have a ton of cap space with much more to offer. As much of a disadvantage Boston has been it is even worse this year. If DeRozan doesn't receive a super max he's my #1 target to overpay but even then we'd have to somehow best out the Lakers who can bring him back home.

peritas · Dec 7, 2015

It is time. The celtics need to make a big deal if they can. A bunch of picks and players for a star. No idea of possible targets but the celtics need it to happen. Nothing should be off the table, including the nets pick this year or any player on the roster. I trust Danny to pull it off. If he can do this and sign a star next summer, then we can be a champion caliber team.

HomeRunBaker · Dec 8, 2015

peritas said:
It is time. The celtics need to make a big deal if they can. A bunch of picks and players for a star. No idea of possible targets but the celtics need it to happen. Nothing should be off the table, including the nets pick this year or any player on the roster. I trust Danny to pull it off. If he can do this and sign a star next summer, then we can be a champion caliber team.

I don't think anyone disagrees with cashing in the draft pick assets for the "right" player. It is rare that this player becomes available and then there are all these other factors that come into play (like when Chris Paul was going to be a Celtic until Piercr said "Hell No I'm not gonna go to Portland and re-sign with them!" It's not easy to make big trades in this league.

nighthob · Dec 8, 2015

HomeRunBaker said:
And the only FA coming here are ones we pay up into the next tier. Everyone will have a ton of cap space with much more to offer. As much of a disadvantage Boston has been it is even worse this year. If DeRozan doesn't receive a super max he's my #1 target to overpay but even then we'd have to somehow best out the Lakers who can bring him back home.

No way I want to be paying LeBron money for DeMar DeRozan. That's a battle I'd let the Lakers win. Better still if Danny could talk Colangelo into dealing the Laker pick for help, because DeRozan is fool's gold. Honestly most players are looking for winning situations these days, which is why the Lakers have been going belly up in the free agent market and the Clippers had to mount a CIA operation just to retain their own guy (who was going to be a centerpiece player on a traditional contender). The Lakers got rejected by Love, Aldridge, and someone else that I'm forgetting. LA just doesn't mean that much in the days of 24/7 media saturation.

Miami's big free agent acquisitions? Re-signing their own guys, one of whom is looking a little overpaid these days. Orlando? Nope, agents wouldn't even take their calls. LaMarcus Aldridge signed to play half his season in a city where they roll up the sidewalks at night. It certainly wasn't the cachet of Texas that lured him because the other Texas teams play in cities that have actual nightlifes, and he rejected their offers. As he did Phoenix's, who also play in a no income tax state. And the Suns struck out in free agency despite the sweet tax deal.

The lesson? Superstars like winning because their NBA salary isn't their total income, and being a marquee player on a contender helps the secondary income streams in ways that being the marquee player on a slagheap doesn't. Boston's disadvantage isn't Boston, because even Milwaukee gets free agents despite playing its games in the Arctic Circle in a high tax state known for cheese and shitty beer. But if Boston ends up with a top three pick, the biggest problem goes away, because they already have the necessary surrounding cast to help a superstar contend.

peritas said:
It is time. The celtics need to make a big deal if they can. A bunch of picks and players for a star. No idea of possible targets but the celtics need it to happen. Nothing should be off the table, including the nets pick this year or any player on the roster. I trust Danny to pull it off. If he can do this and sign a star next summer, then we can be a champion caliber team.

This sounds good in theory, but until one of those guys forces their team's hands running around shrieking "take my draftpicks" rarely works out. Anthony Davis is basically untradable this year thanks to the PPP rule (unless there's a team with $21 million+ in cap room out there), but there's a chance that he forces his way out of New Orleans with his continued uninspired play this year. Come draft day next year the Pelicans could well decide that they're better off building around multiple top five picks rather than Davis.

The Celtics and Building a Contender - Roster Crunch.

Member

Member

Member

Member

canderson-lite

bet squelcher

Member

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak

canderson-lite

Well-Known Member

canderson-lite

Member

Member

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak

Member

Member

Member

canderson-lite

Member

Member

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak

Son of the Harpy

Member

Son of the Harpy

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak

Member

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak

Member

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak

Son of the Harpy

Member

Member

Member

canderson-lite

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Son of the Harpy

Robespierre in a Cape

Son of the Harpy

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak

Member

bet squelcher

New Member

bet squelcher

Member

Member