Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

Blow it up - The Myth


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
169 replies to this topic

#1 TomRicardo


  • rusty cohlebone


  • 17699 posts

Posted 07 July 2012 - 08:35 PM

What was the last team to blow it up and win a championship?

People think you can blow up a team at the end of its run then be relevant within five years.

I can't think of a team that traded away all its assets went into lottery hell and came back a champ.

Detroit went through over a decade of hell with one signing moment with Grant Hill, now they are terrible again.

Took the Lakers about 9 years with Kobe and Shaq then after Shaq they held on to Kobe choosing not to blow up and returned much quicker (still missed the playoffs one year).

Fact is an NBA team is better off holding on to the aging assets and trying to build around them putting younger more athletic pieces around them.

#2 the1andonly3003

  • 959 posts

Posted 07 July 2012 - 09:14 PM

you could argue that the Heat blew it up by getting rid of everyone except Wade and Chalmers...probably the exception to the rule

#3 RGREELEY33

  • 1325 posts

Posted 07 July 2012 - 09:21 PM

Or that Ainge did it with the 2007 C's roster, where only TA, Perk, Powe, Rondo, and PP I believe came back where PP was really the only major contributor (Rondo a rookie, TA playing 33 games, Perk starting 53 games and still trying to establish himself, and Powe still kind of a scrub)?

#4 wutang112878


  • SoSH Member


  • 5377 posts

Posted 07 July 2012 - 09:40 PM

We need to make a distinction between 'blow it up' and 'tank to get to the lottery'. Regardless of how its done, teams in the NBA dont win titles without elite talent, how you get it is sometimes done by blowing it up [intentionally or unintentionally], and sometimes its just pure luck.

If we look at the post-Jordan era:
  • Spurs got lucky and got Duncan when Robinson was hurt. If the Celts had got him and had a competent coach we might not have won as many titles, but we could have won at least 1 with him
  • Lakers essentially blew it up, West got everyone off the roster just to have a chance to sign Shaq, and then made the draft day trade to get Kobe and the nucleus was set.
  • Pistsons construction was just plain odd, exception to the elite talent rule
  • Heat blew up their entire roster to get Shaq, then did a similar thing to get Lebron, Wade and Bosh
  • Celtics were in the ECF when Danny took over, and he essentially tore that roster down piece by piece, developed assets and traded to get the Big3
  • Last 2 Lakers titles were won again with Kobe and via the Gasol lucky trade
  • Mavs are another exception to the rule

The sustained success model can work but you need a once in a lifetime type talent like Duncan and Kobe who are actually durable enough to go from one championship roster, go through retooling and still be effective for the next one. Its beyond rare to find a player with that much talent and durability.

I know when I suggest blow it up, I dont mean 'suck for years and hope you find the elite talent in the lottery', sometimes that might work. But most likely it doesnt and then I think you have to go with Danny's Big3 model, get some high draft picks, make them count [ie dont pull a Chris Wallace], develop the assets and then use the assets to make good trade to get that elite talent.

#5 collings94

  • PipPip
  • 1182 posts

Posted 07 July 2012 - 09:49 PM

What annoys me is that people always want to trade star players for younger talent. I remember earlier this year people where tlaking about trading Rondo and getting a top 10 draft pick out of it. Why would you do that? What are the chances of the player you draft being even half as good as Rondo? It happens all the time.

Your right on the blow up thing, I really racked my brain trying to think of teams that did that and succeeded and I couldn't think of anyone. Minnesota might have something going, but they have been irrelevant since 2004.

#6 Rudy Pemberton


  • Just a string of characters


  • 27927 posts

Posted 07 July 2012 - 09:53 PM

The bulls and thunder are the closest examples of teams that completely blew it up, gutting the team to intentionally be terrible, and then became contenders, but yeah, it's taken a long time and neithe has come close to winning a title. They also pretty much had everything go right in terms of nailing lottery picks for a few years in a row.


#7 Dogman2


  • Yukon Cornelius


  • 10970 posts

Posted 07 July 2012 - 09:56 PM

The bulls and thunder are the closest examples of teams that completely blew it up, gutting the team to intentionally be terrible, and then became contenders, but yeah, it's taken a long time and neithe has come close to winning a title. They also pretty much had everything go right in terms of nailing lottery picks for a few years in a row.


You don't consider 3 wins from a championship close?

#8 mandro ramtinez

  • 1125 posts

Posted 07 July 2012 - 10:00 PM

Blowing it up means jettisoning all of your elite and promising players to start from scratch so by retaining Wade, I don't think you can call what the Heat did blowing it up. Even the 97 Spurs team that tanked still retained David Robinson, Sean Elliott, and Avery Johnson for their first title team two years later. Blowing it up guarantees your team will be terrible in the short and medium term and not much more. It doesn't seem to me that the blowing it up done by the Bulls in 1999 had any correlation to their eventual return to contention.

#9 dolomite133


  • everything I write, think and feel is stupid


  • 5920 posts

Posted 07 July 2012 - 10:01 PM

The myth is that teams can intentionally tank and rebuild around a number one pick. That approach has failed the Celtics twice over the last 20 years. The reality is a team needs to land and build around a superstar or two to win a title. The exception being the Pistons. You could argue the Mavs were an exception but I'd consider Dirk an elite talent.

#10 TomRicardo


  • rusty cohlebone


  • 17699 posts

Posted 07 July 2012 - 10:26 PM

you could argue that the Heat blew it up by getting rid of everyone except Wade and Chalmers...probably the exception to the rule


No they held on to Wade.

OKC I suppose was the closest. They got stupid draft lucky but still haven't won.

The fact is if the Celtics had dumped the Big three this year when things were bad midyear, we would be looking at crappy playoff seed team with no chance out of NBA purgatory. Also we would have missed a hell of a playoff run.

I can't recall blowing up a team ever helping any team in any sport. Closest was the Marlins I suppose.

#11 snowmanny

  • 2321 posts

Posted 07 July 2012 - 10:34 PM

But basketball is weird because you almost need a super talent to win a championship. There have been 26 different players to be MVP in the last 56 years. How many teams have won a title without an MVP? The Warriors in 1975, when they had Rick Barry, who should have won the award, the Pistons with Thomas and the Pistons again. That's it.

So if blowing it up isn't eventually bringing you one of the three or four best players in the league, history says you aren't winning any titles.
Of course not blowing it up is unlikely to work as well.

#12 Rudy Pemberton


  • Just a string of characters


  • 27927 posts

Posted 07 July 2012 - 10:35 PM

You don't consider 3 wins from a championship close?


Well, yeah they made it to the Finals, but they haven't met Tom's criteria of winning it all, and they were obviously blown out in the series. Similarly, the Cavs are another example of a team that blew it all up and made the finals. But yeah, I guess they did come closest, and clearly have a realistic shot of winning it all in the next few years. Either way, probably the model example of how to blow it right.

#13 Hee-Seop's Fable

  • 1264 posts

Posted 07 July 2012 - 11:06 PM

If 'blowing it up' is defined as emptying the roster of every useless and every useful piece without discrimination, no one's going to meet the criteria. The point of a radical rebuild is to remove all of the flotsam to achieve financial flexibility in a very restrictive CBA environment, and/or to snag premium talent in the draft. SA did that with Robinson down injured by tanking and with a pile of luck winning the lottery. Miami did two years ago to get James and Bosh. Getting rid of Robinson or Wade to meet the purest definition would have been nothing more than stupid. They oriented themselves to snag the MVP talent by emptying the cupboard as much as they needed to to achieve the desired result. I'd call that blowing it up, whether it looked like nuclear winter to those on the outside or not.

Lots of teams have failed in their attempts to do it (NYK, LAC etc. going for James come to mind, the Celts for Duncan), but that doesn't mean they didn't blow it up enough, it means they didn't get lucky enough in the draft lottery or didn't close the deal with the FA they set the whole thing up for.

edit- A team making the conference finals after a radical rebuilt would not qualify in my book as a failure, either - Utah building around Stockton and Malone through less than top draft picks was a damn good management job in my book. I'd take a team like that come 2018 seven days a week.

Edited by Hee-Seop's Fable, 07 July 2012 - 11:11 PM.


#14 sibpin

  • 2627 posts

Posted 08 July 2012 - 12:51 AM

A few examples of teams hoarding lottery picks to get the superstars (either via trade or draft):

2012 Heat: 2003 #5 (Wade), 2008 #2 (traded for assets traded for Bosh), 2011 #5 (traded for Bosh).
2012 Thunder: 2007 #2 (Durant), 2008 #4 (Westbrook), 2009 #3 (Harden). Also used the 2007 #5 (traded for Perkins).
2008 Celtics: 1998 #10 (Pierce), 2007 #5 (traded for Allen), 2009 #6 (traded for Garnett). Plus the just-out-of-the-lottery 2004 #15 (traded for Garnett).
1999 Spurs: 1987 #1 (Robinson), 1989 #3 (Elliott), 1999 #1 (Duncan)
1990s Bulls: 1984 #3 (Jordan), 1987 #5 (Pippen), 1987 #10 (Grant), 1988 #11 (traded for Rodman)
1980s Lakers: 1974 #12 (traded for Abdul-Jabbar), 1975 #2 and #8 (traded for Abdul-Jabbar), 1979 #1 (Magic), 1982 #1 (Worthy)
1980s Celtics: 1978 #6 (Bird), 1980 #1 and #13 (traded for McHale and Parish)

Current examples of teams who have hoarded draft picks even more than the above teams had, but haven't gotten anywhere close to a championship:

Minnesota Timberwolves (2006 #7, 2007 #7, 2008 #5, 2009 #5, 2009 #6, 2010 #4, 2011 #2)
Sacramento Kings (2007 #10, 2008 #12, 2009 #4, 2010 #5, 2011 #7, 2012 #5)
Golden State Warriors (2001 #5, 2002 #3, 2003 #11, 2004 #11, 2005 #9, 2006 #9, 2007 #8, 2008 #14, 2009 #7, 2010 #6, 2011 #11)
Toronto Raptors (2003 #4, 2005 #7, 2006 #1, 2009 #9, 2010 #13, 2011 #5, 2012 #8)
New York Knicks (2002 #7, 2003 #9, 2005 #8, 2008 #6, 2009 #8, 2010 #9)
Charlotte Bobcats (2004 #2, 2005 #5, 2006 #3, 2007 #8, 2008 #9, 2009 #12, 2011 #9, 2012 #2)
Milwaukee Bucks (2002 #13, 2003 #8, 2005 #1, 2007 #6, 2008 #8, 2009 #10, 2011 #10, 2012 #14)
Portland Trail Blazers (2004 #13, 2005 #3, 2006 #2, 2006 #6, 2007 #1, 2008 #13)
Los Angeles Clippers (1993 #13, 1994 #7, 1995 #2, 1996 #7, 1997 #14, 1998 #1, 1999 #4, 2000 #3, 2001 #2, 2002 #8, 2003 #6, 2004 #4, 2005 #12, 2007 #14, 2008 #7, 2009 #1, 2010 #8, 2012 #10)

In short, the odds of turning one or two lottery picks into a championship run are so small that you're better off hoarding picks/talent and trading that for a known superstar. The twist is that in this era, superstars only want to play for teams that already have those great players in place - see Howard, Deron, CP3 pre-veto, kinda-Carmelo, LeBron, Bosh, Allen, Garnett. So that means the way to win is to have a superstar or two in place already along with a stable of lottery picks. Seems that the Brooklyn Nets are currently using this formula - they used the 2010 #3, 2011 #3, and 2012 #6 to get Deron Williams and Gerald Wallace. They're a little bit short, as the 2008 #10 (Brook Lopez) just isn't enough to be a superstar or to lure away Dwight Howard. Not sure who will be the next team to do it - if CP3 and Howard go to separate teams next season, there aren't a whole lot of superstars available for a while.

Edited by sibpin, 08 July 2012 - 12:59 AM.


#15 bosox79

  • 1744 posts

Posted 08 July 2012 - 02:31 PM

Not all the blow up scenerios are similar anyway. Kobe and Wade were considerably younger. Like when the Celts "blew it up" they held on to a younger Pierce. Age plays a huge part in it. If you are going to have KG for 2-3 more years as opposed to having Wade for 10, that changes the dynamic.

For the most part it seems like drafting a superstar or two in the lottery and then acquiring one or two via FA or trade is the way to go.

#16 dolomite133


  • everything I write, think and feel is stupid


  • 5920 posts

Posted 08 July 2012 - 05:27 PM

A few examples of teams hoarding lottery picks to get the superstars (either via trade or draft):


Note that most of the failed teams are small market, and probably lost whatever stars they had to free agency anyway (or maybe had to trade them away, which might explain the picks).

#17 Marbleheader


  • SoSH Member


  • 7070 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 01:10 PM

Thinking about this discussion, is Rondo the kind of player that should stay during the transitional years, or should he be traded for a player better suited to 'build around'?



#18 dolomite133


  • everything I write, think and feel is stupid


  • 5920 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 04:59 PM

Thinking about this discussion, is Rondo the kind of player that should stay during the transitional years, or should he be traded for a player better suited to 'build around'?

I once said Rondo was maybe the greatest complementary player in NBA history. However as a franchise player he has some shortcomings (free throw shooting, shooting range, the fact that point guards aren't normally typically the lynchpins of most championship squads). I would argue that if you can trade him for a potential franchise big (Cousins?) or wing you do it. If not then you keep him (his contract is very affordable) and adjust the roster around him for the time being.



#19 Brickowski

  • 3593 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 06:49 PM

Sam Presti blew it up in Seattle/OKC by dumping Ray and Rashard for young players.  After trading those two away they were 20-62 in 2007-08 and 23-52 in 2008-2009.  Then they got Durant and instantly became a 50-win team.  They haven't  won a championship yet but they're damn close.

 

Maybe a team might do better by hanging onto its aging assets and building around them, but not after they retire.  The Celtics are going to suck in 2015-2016 after Garnett leaves and there's nothing Ainge can do about it.  There is no choice here.  The only question is whether they'll be a crappy team that has positioned itself to return to respectability or one that hasn't.


Edited by Brickowski, 26 January 2013 - 07:16 PM.


#20 smastroyin


  • simpering whimperer


  • 16472 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 07:35 PM

And if they'd drafted Oden they would totally suck balls right now.

Let's not pretend Kevin Durant comes around every year please...never mind the draft lotto issues

#21 Brickowski

  • 3593 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 07:49 PM

Sure, Presti was lucky.  But he put himself in a position to be lucky.  So did Ainge in that same year but the leprechaun didn't come through. 

 

Presti also got Collison and Harden with his other two lotto picks and Ibaka with the 24th pick in '09.  Three for three.  His one questionable move was trading for Perkins.  He thought Perkins would be a good fit but he hasn't been.  I note in passing that Presti did retain veterans from those awful Seattle teams, but he chose wisely (e.g. Nick Collison).

 

Actually they had Durant the year they went 23-59 but they had nothing around him.  But as soon as they had, they went from 23 wins to 50.


Edited by Brickowski, 26 January 2013 - 07:50 PM.


#22 PedrosRedGlove

  • 488 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 09:40 PM

And most of us don't want to tank this team in the hopes that after sucking for two years, we will be fortunate enough to win one literal lottery, and then another figurative one by having timing so good that we are able to pluck the next Kevin Durant out of the draft.  Your thoughts on a Paul Pierce for Pau Gasol trade in the other thread was, "And then what?" Well, and then we have Gasol on an expensive expiring contract for a future asset, and for the present we have a team centered around the very formidable front court of Gasol and KG, something that I know I wouldn't mind rolling the dice with. Win or lose, Gasol on his expiring deal seems like a better asset to deal with than Pierce and his deal.

 

You realize that in most of the scenarios you want, many of which involve massive shake up, the "and then what?" best case scenario is sucking for two or more years combined with the insane good fortune of grabbing Kevin Durant with the 2nd overall pick, Russell Westbrook with the 4th the following year, then James Harden with the 3rd the next? Presti didn't just simply get lucky, Presti hit the 99th percentile of expected positive outcome when trying to build a team through the draft.  Rebuilding, in the format you seem to desire, just isn't a dependable way to end up with anything. There is a path to take that involves sucking and rebuilding through the draft, but it really isn't proven, and if it is, the time table is not clear, it could take a decade of sucking/playing the draft lottery to end up with the right timing of picks and prospects to get players to build your franchise around.  The formula is not as direct as you seem to imply when you constantly advocate blowing it up as a timely method to returning to title contention. 

 

The idea that there is some spot in the standings which relegates your franchise to purgatory by being not good enough to contend, but not bad enough to 'Suck for Luck,' is pretty overblown on this site, and I think that is a major reason why there is such a panicked tone of "We have to rebuild NOW!"  I guess I just trust Danny Ainge to evaluate the situation and make the right decision.  Even if you don't like all his moves he has shown himself to be a bit more than just a competent NBA executive.  NBA purgatory is having Michael Jordan steering the ship, we aren't in that predicament, so just relax a little and try to enjoy the ride.



#23 Brickowski

  • 3593 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 09:50 PM

With Gasol, you'll be facing the same choices this time next year.  What can you get for his expiring deal?  How do you plan to avoid the path which "involves sucking and rebuilding through the draft, but it really isn't proven, and if it is, the time table is not clear?"  Do you plan to trade Gasol's expiring contract for a young veteran "cornerstone" player? Is that realistic?  And what about the following year, when Garnett retires?

 

Rondo is the "young veteran star" on this team.  His contract ends when Garnett's does, and he'll be 29 years old.  Do you keep him and build around him (as Ainge did with Pierce) or do you trade him?  Everything flows from that decision. 

 

If you think Rondo at age 31 or 32 can lead a good supporting cast into contention (which will at minimum have to include a competent big man, a "go to" scorer and a guy who can defend the other team's best player), then you do not blow it up.  You carefully put pieces around him.

 

If, however, you believe that Rondo is too mercurial to lead such a team, you blow it up as quickly as you can and start over.  I don't think he can lead the Celtics back into contention.  He's talented but he dominates the ball.  The offense has no balance.  Too many turnovers trying to make flashy passes.  So I go back to square one.


Edited by Brickowski, 26 January 2013 - 10:08 PM.


#24 wutang112878


  • SoSH Member


  • 5377 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 12:29 AM

Thinking about this discussion, is Rondo the kind of player that should stay during the transitional years, or should he be traded for a player better suited to 'build around'?

 

This is a great question, and my answer is probably not, there isnt one major reason but a collection of them:

  • Rondo is signed for the next 2 years, then is going to want an increase in salary at 28 and probably will be looking for his last big payday
  • If they start at the deadline, its probably going to take 3-4 years to put the next championship team together
  • Based on this, Rondo's contract might be an albatross towards the end and just as the championship window is opening again, Rondos career window will be closing
  • Rondo is moody and stubborn.  This isnt going to change if he is surrounded by a bunch of young players and the team is playing poorly, and that attitude wont be conducive to developing young talent.
  • Once the franchise goes into development mode if Rondo reacts negatively towards the situation and gets a worse bad attitude reputation, it will hurt his value.  Having said that, there are very few stars who a franchise would look at and say 'he will stay patient with us during rebuilding'
  • Rondo isnt great at creating his own shot and his shooting is still limited, with worse offensive weapons around him he will be much easier to guard and will take a significant hit in every statistical category.  Greater than a hit that a Deron Williams or CP3 would take in a similar situation because of his limits on offense

Obviously thats a lot of what ifs, but there are just to many potential negatives for me to really want to build around him.  And maybe most importantly, if you want a top 5 pick and a chance at getting a true franchise player, trading Rondo might be able to get us the draft pick that we could use to acquire that player.



#25 dhellers

  • 523 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 01:12 AM

This is a great question, and my answer is probably not, there isnt one major reason but a collection of them ...

 

Obviously thats a lot of what ifs, but there are just to many potential negatives for me to really want to build around him.  And maybe most importantly, if you want a top 5 pick and a chance at getting a true franchise player, trading Rondo might be able to get us the draft pick that we could use to acquire that player.

Why oh why would you assume that your mythical top 5 draft pick (if the balls bounce your way) would be overall better than what Rondo might be? The odds are against it (i.e.  do you think Jeff Green/Devin Harris is better than Rajon Rondo?)



#26 ALiveH

  • 433 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 03:29 AM

Wutang makes some good points on Rondo, but overall too glass-half-empty... to address some of them: tough to predict how he'd react to a rebuild or how long the rebuild would take - these guys are pros, Rondo is not good enough a la LBJ or ClownFace to dictate where he plays; I agree his value likely takes a hit during the rebuild due to diminished stats, but that is good if you're trying to re-sign him without breaking the bank and have no intention of trading him; He's 27 now. Barring injury, he should improve for next couple years. Not a great leader now, but neither was Pierce at 27. He could be very good for another 7 years (even Nash was very good to his late 30s), especially as his jumper improves a la J-Kidd (NBA players tend to improve their jumpers over time). I keep rondo unless a GM overpays. By overpay, I mean something like 2 1sts or a 1st plus a championship-level starter. On Gasol... to the extent we have a championship window (debatable) Gasol extends it (makes us younger, less pounding on KG). He's making too much money but next year it's an expiring contract so could get some value for him if decide to blow it up later.

#27 Brickowski

  • 3593 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 10:59 AM

There are no guarantees either way. 

 

If you want an example of a team that failed in blowing it up and going young, look at the mid-90's Dallas Mavericks.  Kidd, Mashburn and Jackson were going to be the next big thing.  They were on the cover of SI and all of that.  But Mashburn got hurt and Kidd spent several years driving Dick Motta crazy before being traded to Phoenix. (They had the immensely talented Roy Tarpley too...sad) 

 

If you want examples of teams that tried to "rebuild on the fly" and failed I can give you plenty of examples, starting with the Denver Nuggets. Since 2003, when they drafted Carmello Anthony, they've won at least 43 games every year (except the lockout year).   In those ten years, they've lost in the first round of the WC playoffs eight times and in the WC finals once.  Their plan to put the right pieces around Carmello failed, he refused to sign an extension and demanded a trade, and off he went to the Knicks.  And this year the Nuggets are once again a favorite to go out in the first round for the ninth time in eleven years.

 

One team that blew it up completely and won several championships was... the 1977-78 Boston Celtics.  The only players from that 77-78 team who were on the roster of the 1981 championship team were Maxwell (who was a rookie) and Tiny Archibald.  That reconstruction also had plenty of luck, starting with the five GMs who passed on Larry Bird in 1978 and the GMs who drafted Joe Barry Carrol and Darrel Griffith ahead of McHale. 


Edited by Brickowski, 27 January 2013 - 01:03 PM.


#28 ishmael

  • 406 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 01:10 PM

So basically the only way blowing it up works is if you're in LA or Miami and superstars want to play in your city?

We need to make a distinction between 'blow it up' and 'tank to get to the lottery'. Regardless of how its done, teams in the NBA dont win titles without elite talent, how you get it is sometimes done by blowing it up [intentionally or unintentionally], and sometimes its just pure luck.

If we look at the post-Jordan era:

  • Spurs got lucky and got Duncan when Robinson was hurt. If the Celts had got him and had a competent coach we might not have won as many titles, but we could have won at least 1 with him
  • Lakers essentially blew it up, West got everyone off the roster just to have a chance to sign Shaq, and then made the draft day trade to get Kobe and the nucleus was set.
  • Pistsons construction was just plain odd, exception to the elite talent rule
  • Heat blew up their entire roster to get Shaq, then did a similar thing to get Lebron, Wade and Bosh
  • Celtics were in the ECF when Danny took over, and he essentially tore that roster down piece by piece, developed assets and traded to get the Big3
  • Last 2 Lakers titles were won again with Kobe and via the Gasol lucky trade
  • Mavs are another exception to the rule

The sustained success model can work but you need a once in a lifetime type talent like Duncan and Kobe who are actually durable enough to go from one championship roster, go through retooling and still be effective for the next one. Its beyond rare to find a player with that much talent and durability.

I know when I suggest blow it up, I dont mean 'suck for years and hope you find the elite talent in the lottery', sometimes that might work. But most likely it doesnt and then I think you have to go with Danny's Big3 model, get some high draft picks, make them count [ie dont pull a Chris Wallace], develop the assets and then use the assets to make good trade to get that elite talent.

 



#29 PedrosRedGlove

  • 488 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 01:13 PM

When are you not facing personnel decisions? I just don't understand why you need to have all of these questions answered right now.  Crazy stuff happens, performance, injury, or other, all the time that has huge effects on player values, you cross those bridges when you come to them.  Having Pau Gasol on an expiring deal seems like a pretty decent situation, maybe they work some miracle that nets them a future cornerstone, maybe he is flipped for a bad contract and draft picks.  I'm not sure avoiding sucking and needing the draft at some point is possible, but I don't see much of a reason to dive in head first.

 

If we're going to look at models to base a rebuild on, let's not ignore the one right in front of our noses. This team was a "contender" in the 2002 playoffs, Ainge took over in 2003, and by 2008 they won a championship. It took him four years of rebuilding, the first two of which the team made the playoffs and bowed out in the first round, so our own team pretty much proves the purgatory theory wrong.

 

You have a hatred for Rondo that really clouds your judgment. You completely ignore all of the immense contribution he does provide and focus solely on the negative.  You act like he has to be "The Man" on a rebuilt team if he remains here, was Pierce "The Man" on the rebuilt Celtics? No, Ainge used the assets he accumulated over a few years and turned them into two players of equal if not greater impact than the cornerstone he already had.  I don't think he has become incompetent since then, so I'm confident he'll be able to work similar magic with this current roster over the next couple years, that's why I'm not panicking about whose contracts are on the books for 2015.  As for Rondo, I think the fact the the debate we're having is, "Can Rondo be the #1 guy on a title contender in 5 years?" shows that we're picking nits between whether he is great or elite, and either way, it is stupid to think that he couldn't be a major contributor on a contending team in a few years.  Because of that it doesn't make any sense to get anything less than maximum value for him, that is another reason not to rush to rebuild.



#30 ishmael

  • 406 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 01:16 PM

And to Brickowski's point about the 1978 Celtics and complete luck: Bird was drafted a year early. He had the option to re-enter the draft in 1979 (the same year Magic went #1 overall), but Red + Bob Woolf were able to negotiate a deal at the last minute to deliver Bird to Boston and a huge (at the time) rookie contract to Larry.



#31 nighthob

  • 2821 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 03:01 PM

Can we change the name of the thread to "Blow it up- The Reality"?



#32 dolomite133


  • everything I write, think and feel is stupid


  • 5920 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 03:06 PM

No matter what happens with the game the Heat won today. Looks like they will cruise to the finals and probably cruise past a beaten and battered Western Conference contender.



#33 Morgan's Magic Snowplow


  • SoSH Member


  • 8721 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 03:32 PM

Can we change the name of the thread to "Blow it up- The Reality"?

 

Seconded.

 

Today's game notwithstanding, there's no way this team competes for a title this year and there's really no realistic scenario in which we keep a declining core intact, add pieces around the edges, and compete for a title in the next couple years.

 

Blowing it up may offer only a small chance of success for building a championship caliber team but a small chance is better than no chance.  This franchise's goal should be to accumulate young assets, increase cap flexibility, and be really terrible this year and, especially, next.  If that means trading Pierce and Garnett in the next two weeks or over the summer, so be it.  Bringing the Big 3 era to a close and explicitly looking to build around Rondo, Bradley, Sully, Melo, a lotto pick this year, and a Top 5 pick in next year's stacked draft is the least bad option we have at this point.



#34 ishmael

  • 406 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 03:56 PM

Seconded.

 

Today's game notwithstanding, there's no way this team competes for a title this year and there's really no realistic scenario in which we keep a declining core intact, add pieces around the edges, and compete for a title in the next couple years.

 

Blowing it up may offer only a small chance of success for building a championship caliber team but a small chance is better than no chance.  This franchise's goal should be to accumulate young assets, increase cap flexibility, and be really terrible this year and, especially, next.  If that means trading Pierce and Garnett in the next two weeks or over the summer, so be it.  Bringing the Big 3 era to a close and explicitly looking to build around Rondo, Bradley, Sully, Melo, a lotto pick this year, and a Top 5 pick in next year's stacked draft is the least bad option we have at this point.

Bogut, Barnes, Bierdens and Richard Jefferson for Pierce, KG, Wilcox and Jeff Green?

 

GS goes for it now with vets, including the ideal player to flank David Lee on the defensive end.



#35 knucklecup


  • hi, I'm a cuckold


  • 4125 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 04:15 PM

The Celtics have now beat every Eastern Conference playoff contender.

Despite hiccups against inferior opponents, they've shown they can beat anybody that stands in front of them in a playoff format.

#36 dolomite133


  • everything I write, think and feel is stupid


  • 5920 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 04:24 PM

The Celtics have now beat every Eastern Conference playoff contender.

Despite hiccups against inferior opponents, they've shown they can beat anybody that stands in front of them in a playoff format.

Knuckle, I appreciate the spirit, but let's wait to see if we beat them again without Rondo before making that statement. One win over the Heat does not a title contender make.



#37 Brickowski

  • 3593 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 04:26 PM

IMHO the Celtics are going to surprise people without Rondo.  But even if they don't, I'll take the lotto pick.  I have little interest in first round playoff exits.  This is Boston, not Denver.



#38 Boston Brawler

  • 4487 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 04:31 PM

I don't care about the lotto pick. All I want is to be in the way of the Heat, even if we prove to be a minor speedbump.



#39 knucklecup


  • hi, I'm a cuckold


  • 4125 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 04:32 PM

It's obnoxious to me that everybody wants to blow up this team.

Besides Miami, without Rondo, they're just as good as every team in the East.

The Knicks will only go as far as their jump shooting takes them. They've been one of the luckiest teams in the league this season. I would be salivating at a 7 vs 2 match up against the Knicks.

The Bulls? Pacers? Hawks?

Who can't the C's beat in a playoff format?

#40 Brickowski

  • 3593 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 04:48 PM


The Bulls? Pacers? Hawks?

Who can't the C's beat in a playoff format?

Potentially all of them.  But you forgot the Sixers, who took the C's to 7 games last year.



#41 knucklecup


  • hi, I'm a cuckold


  • 4125 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 04:48 PM

Potentially all of them.  But you forgot the Sixers, who took the C's to 7 games last year.


The same team the Bulls lost to in 6...

#42 dhellers

  • 523 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 05:05 PM

Seconded.

 

Today's game notwithstanding, there's no way this team competes for a title this year and there's really no realistic scenario in which we keep a declining core intact, add pieces around the edges, and compete for a title in the next couple years.

 

Blowing it up may offer only a small chance of success for building a championship caliber team but a small chance is better than no chance.  This franchise's goal should be to accumulate young assets, increase cap flexibility, and be really terrible this year and, especially, next.  If that means trading Pierce and Garnett in the next two weeks or over the summer, so be it.  Bringing the Big 3 era to a close and explicitly looking to build around Rondo, Bradley, Sully, Melo, a lotto pick this year, and a Top 5 pick in next year's stacked draft is the least bad option we have at this point.

Your argument boils down to: lets  start a 5 to 10 year rebuild right away, and blow up a team that might be fun to watch right now. 

Seems like a dubious deal to me.

 



#43 dolomite133


  • everything I write, think and feel is stupid


  • 5920 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 05:07 PM

Your argument boils down to: lets  start a 5 to 10 year rebuild right away, and blow up a team that might be fun to watch right now. 

Seems like a dubious deal to me.

 

I don't care which side of the rebuilding argument you fall on. But neither side should be aiming for a team that is simply "fun to watch."



#44 Morgan's Magic Snowplow


  • SoSH Member


  • 8721 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 05:13 PM

Your argument boils down to: lets  start a 5 to 10 year rebuild right away, and blow up a team that might be fun to watch right now. 

Seems like a dubious deal to me.

 

 

I'm hoping for more than a team that is "fun to watch" for a few months.  And I don't really expect it to be that fun watching this team limp its way to a 7-8 seed and a first round playoff exit.



#45 dhellers

  • 523 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 05:13 PM

I don't care which side of the rebuilding argument you fall on. But neither side should be aiming for a team that is simply "fun to watch."

Why? Is winning a championship the only thing that can ever matter? As a lifelong celtics fan (used my paper route money to buy playoff tix in the 60s) the haplessness of the 90's cured me of that pretension.

 

Just to ward off reactionary comments: Yes, being a contender is a GREAT thing.  But if blowing it up barely increases your odds of being a contender, then maintaining a "fun to watch" team (that is fun because it plays well and has some chance of going deep) is a reasonable goal. In an expected value sense.



#46 knucklecup


  • hi, I'm a cuckold


  • 4125 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 05:14 PM

Besides Miami, who would they lose to in the first round?

Maybe the Bulls if Rose comes back healthy. They're better than every other team in the East though.

#47 Reardons Beard

  • 1047 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 05:15 PM

This team will execute Doc's system better without Rondo.

 

The question becomes, is his system good enough to beat top talent?

 

Today they did. Can they do it four times in seven games?



#48 mcpickl

  • 2082 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 05:20 PM

I don't care which side of the rebuilding argument you fall on. But neither side should be aiming for a team that is simply "fun to watch."

 

Why not?

 

The NBA is supposed to be entertainment.

 

That is exactly what I want from the teams I follow, be fun to watch.



#49 RedOctober3829


  • SoSH Member


  • 15803 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 05:22 PM

Besides Miami, who would they lose to in the first round?
Maybe the Bulls if Rose comes back healthy. They're better than every other team in the East though.


They have shown to be inconsistent this year. They lost 4 in a row, won 6, then lost 6 in their previous 16 games. I wouldn't count on them to beat any of the teams they'd face in the first round, but I wouldn't be surprised either way. That's how Jekyll and Hyde they are this year.

#50 dhellers

  • 523 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 05:26 PM

Why not?

 

The NBA is supposed to be entertainment.

 

That is exactly what I want from the teams I follow, be fun to watch.

Especially if it is in a Bill Russell kind of way .... which a KG led team could do

 

 (not saying they can manufacture another championship)


Edited by dhellers, 27 January 2013 - 05:26 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users