169 replies to this topic

[Brickowski]

Pau was already signed.  He extended for 3 more years in December of 2009, two years after he was traded.  But yes, there are dangers to tanking, not the least of which is loss of revenue. 

It's just which set of risks a team would prefer to assume, given its particular situation. 

[smastroyin]

We tanked because Paul Pierce was out.  The Ray Allen trade also involved a huge expiring deal which you are ignoring.  

 

And ALIVEH.  This is not a semantic argument.  This is an argument of you think everyone but yourself is necessarily wrong.  You may as well own that before telling other people what to post.
 

the eventual rebuild take another 2-3 yrs longer for a total of 4-5 yrs delay on the rebuild.

 

This is conjecture.  See?  There is no way to refute your point because you just believe it to be true.  There is no evidence that you are right, but you believe it.  Thus, it is hard to provide counter-evidence.

 

 

[bowiac]

I think there are two issues being confused here. There's:

 

1. Do you rebuild now, or do you hold onto Pierce/KG for old times sake?

 

2. In a rebuild, do you want to target the best young players you can get, or do you want to go full tank/lottery/cap space?

 

I'm opposed to tanking as the way to rebuild. I don't think it's actually effective. I think all else equal, going to the Rockets route is the better way to rebuild, rather than the Charlotte/Wizards/OKC path. I'm pretty okay with moving on from Pierce/KG if we can get good pieces for them however.

[Brickowski]

bowiac, I am in complete agreement with your last statement.  I've never advocated a move simply for the sake of a move.  But you don't keep KG or PP for sentimental reasons or to remain a .500 team, either.

 

smastroyen, let's get the history a little more straight.  The large contract that went to Seattle for Ray Allen was Szcerbiak, who had two years remaining.  Ainge used his large expiring contract (Theo Ratliff) in the Garnett deal.

[smastroyin]

The point is that ALive doesn't recognize the importance of the Ratliff contract to making the deals happen because it doesn't fit his thesis of how to tank. Or, more specifically, he has completely ignored this point.  Also Szerbiak was pretty important to the Allen deal because you need salaries to match up in order to also have the ability to bring on a third max contract.

 

People who are new and show off their inability to do anything other than say the same thing over and over because people don't agree with them are going to hear it from me and from others.  It's stupid, and it is dragging down the conversation.  A conversation which is hardly new or hardly unique to the Celtics, even if the actors are.  We aren't the first people to think about tanking.  At least the last time we were talking about it here it was because there were two seemingly world-class talents coming in the draft (Oden and Durant) but the draft being not that special otherwise.  And even one of those two world class talents turned out to be a bust.  But you know, at least then there was something to tank for.  What are we tanking for now?  The 10th instead of 15th pick in a weak draft? 

 

Look if you can get a bunch of high lotto picks in 2014 for your guys, then fine.  By all means, I'll sit through another shitty couple of seasons for that.  But, I think that's a lot less realistic than this team getting to the ECF this year.

[Brickowski]

Yes, and it's interesting that Ainge has a ton of expiring contracts in the last year of Garnett's contract--not just KG but also Rondo, Bass, Lee and Terry.  If he needs expirings to make things happen at that point, he's got them.

 

Pierce is a bit more of a pressing issue, since all but $5M of his deal for next year is non-guaranteed, and even if they pick up his full $15M contract for 2013-14, his deal expires a year earlier than the others.  So he could be a moveable piece this year, although the chance of getting a high pick for him is virtually nil.  I've struggled with his basketball value to the Celtics vs his trade value (either as a player for a contender or as an expiring contract) and I don't have an answer.

Edited by Brickowski, 29 January 2013 - 05:39 PM.

[ALiveH]

just because i didn't say it doesn't mean i didn't know it. I didn't feel the need to restate what a bunch of other people have been saying already that you need the salaries to match up and anyway there will be a cap floor so you need to take on "bad" contracts to make trades work. and during the time you suck you don't care if you are paying underperforming players as long as they come off the books when you're ready to get good again. I know it's not as simple as KG for a 1st - it's going to be KG + some parts to make the trade work for someone else's parts to make the trade work + a 1st (hopefully 2014).

and, I didn't advocate tanking "now". I actually advocated playing it out till the trade deadline, then if the team didn't show it was playing significantly better without Rondo (Ewing theory potential), then you blow it up at the deadline. So, we have 3 weeks to the real decision point - my blow-it-up suggestion was assuming our opinion is unch'd between now and the deadline and we still thought the team had a slim-to-none chance of a deep playoff run this year. Anyway, I agree and said elsewhere the real tank job would be for the 2014 draft and there's no way we'll get a lottery team to give up a 2014 1st so we'll have to do the tanking ourselves.

Lastly, I stated the eventual rebuild taking 4-5 years longer in the context of a larger discussion about people ignoring risks of trying to play it out, i.e., it is not my belief that is necessarily what must happen. I just believe that if people are going to point out the risks of blowing it up, it's only fair to point out the risk of keeping it together could be the difference between competing for a championship again in 2015 instead of 2020. In the end either approach has risks and will only be succesful with some combination of smarts and luck.

In principle, I'm pretty indifferent between getting good young talent and getting picks. In practice, with good young talent the talent is already fully valued so you will have to trade closer to full value. However, Ainge has a proven track record of extracting & developing above average talent for his drafting position, hence my preference for picks - in order to play to our strengths.

Edited by ALiveH, 29 January 2013 - 09:05 PM.

[dhellers]

 

and, I didn't advocate tanking "now". I actually advocated playing it out till the trade deadline,...

 

Lastly, I stated the eventual rebuild taking 4-5 years longer in the context of a larger discussion about people ignoring risks of trying to play it out, i.e., it is not my belief that is necessarily what must happen. I just believe that if people are going to point out the risks of blowing it up, it's only fair to point out the risk of keeping it together could be the difference between competing for a championship again in 2015 instead of 2020. In the end either approach has risks and will only be succesful with some combination of smarts and luck.

In principle, I'm pretty indifferent between getting good young talent and getting picks. In practice, with good young talent the talent is already fully valued so you will have to trade closer to full value. However, Ainge has a proven track record of extracting & developing above average talent for his drafting position, hence my preference for picks - in order to play to our strengths.

Glad to see you are willing to give this cast a chance.

 

Still, I have to question your add 4-5 years estimate.  Let's say you get rid of PP or KG, you probably get a salary dump and a mid-teens draft (or ayoung player equivalent).  And a you get a 10-15 2013 pick from tanking this year. But you get a 20 or so pick for this year anyways.  In 2014 you get a 10 or so pick, instead of the 20 or so pick. In 2015, probably the same picks either way (KG and PP being gone).

 

So you add two 15-20 picks, and convert two 20 picks to a 10 picks.  That's a nice benefit, but far from guaranteeing a 4-5 year faster rebirth.

  And you just can't ignore the possible benefits of PP or KG "mentoring" of middling players you might get;

  nor the fact that RR may disappear if he has to play many years on a rebuild.

 nor the chance you might be able to attract a stud free agent in 2 years to finish off a nice team, using KG/PP expired money 

and you might get to enjoy two shots at getting to the ECF

 

.. and that's why I don't feel too romantic erring on the side of "let's see what these guys can do"

  

Edited by dhellers, 29 January 2013 - 09:21 PM.

[Brickowski]

So, what's the over/under on how many players on the current roster will still be here in 2015-2016?  I'm guessing two, but it could be as many as five if Ainge keeps Lee, Green, Sullinger and Bradley and gives Rondo another extension..

Edited by Brickowski, 29 January 2013 - 09:38 PM.

[ALiveH]

yes in that scenario, KG, PP, BB, Lee, JET are non-core to the rebuild. say you can package them somehow for two 2014 1sts around 20-25 (might have to throw in JG + Melo to sweeten it) + we get our own mid-lotto 2013 + our own 2014 high-lotto. Add that to a core of Rondo, Avery and Sully (and JG + Melo if you can retain them). That COULD be a nice core (all 27 or under) that if you're lucky and smart could contend very soon. Or even if it's not good enough to contend soon it creates lots of options to package any 2 of those young attractive assets (except Rondo who already is one) for proven stars.


The add 4-5 year estimate is my worst case and it comes from the fact we don't get any lottos for next 2 years, don't get any extra 1sts for next 2 years and Rondo would be starting to decline as we're starting to get good again.


Rondo isn't good enough to dictate where he plays. He's not a Dwight Howard or LBJ. Celtics have been historically bad at attracting high-profile free agents (but once they get here they seem to like it so re-signing seems like less of a problem).


BTW, until Rondo went down I was very strongly in the "lets see if these guys can flip the switch and wait till the offseason" camp. But, Rondo's injury changes the whole calculus. ECF is a worthy goal in IMO - if we could get there for next 2 years then I would say let's keep it together and do a gradual transition to the new core. So, yeah, let's see if we can kick butt for the next few weeks.

Edited by ALiveH, 29 January 2013 - 09:47 PM.

[cumicon]

If the Celtics were to blow it up, I think this is about the best, and quickest rebuild they could hope for:

 

Trade KG to OKC for Perkins, Lamb, and Toronto's #1

Trade Pierce to LAC for Bledsoe and whatever else to make it work, probably need to involve a third team.

 

You head into the 2013 draft with Toronto's pick (currently #7) and the Celtics pick (~#10)

 

Figure out if you want Rondo or Bledsoe to be the PG of the future.  Whoever isn't the PG of the future gets traded during the 2013/14 season for more assets.  For this example, lets say Rondo gets traded and Bledsoe is our PG.

 

The 2013/14 team is bad, hopefully bad enough to land a top 3 pick.  The 2014 draft appears to have strong talent at the top (Wiggins / Parker / Randle).  

 

You then head into 2014/15 with a core of Bledsoe, Lamb, Bradley, Sullinger, Melo, 2013 pick #7, 2013 pick #10, 2014 top 5 pick, and the package you got for Rondo.

 

If you do well drafting, this team is in a great position.  You will have young talent and money to spend heading into 2015/16.

[dhellers]

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.

Hey Tom, don't you think it would be awesome to trade KG for Bledsoe so you can then trade him (or Rondo) for a prospect who is over 6' 3". What could possibly go wrong with that plan?

[nighthob]

With all due respect there's one person out there saying that, and he's on your side, the "We can't trade Rondo no matter what because he's the bestest there's ever been!" side. I think most people are cognizant of the fact that if Boston is trading Garnett it's because they're going into rebuilding mode, not to compete for a title in 2014. The plan would be to hope that they acquired enough assets from lottery picks in 2013 & 2014 plus whatever for Rondo in order to deal for a real cornerstone player. Not to try trade and trade Bledsoe for a big.

[dhellers]

How about some references...

  http://sonsofsamhorn...-6#entry4539142

or

 http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/76077-life-after-rondo-sully-now-what/page-6#entry4539108

 

as examples of comments noting that a reason for acquiring Bledsoe is to use in future trades (or trade Rondo). 

Full disclosure: these commenters note "if you are in blow-it-up mode".  An "if" that is up for discussion

 

And may I, kind sir, note that the notion of Rondo being the bestest ever is so sweet, even a sugar addict would kind it cloying.  So of course that means that rolling the dice on a trade for prospect ... correct that ... a prospect "projected to be awesome" is the null hypothesis to be rejected.

 

That said: perhaps I am being too snippy. Even if these proposals often are borderline vacuous, even if they often assume everthing works according to a plan with many moving parts, even if they often ignore the downside risks; there really is nothing wrong with speculating and discussing. In fact, it is a reasonable way to discover useful ideas.

 

Nevertheless, such proposals are the grist of any blow-it-up strategy. If there is one place where castigating such proposals has a place , it is in  this "myth of blowing it up" thread.

 

(BTW: "parents as harpies" -- what keyphrase yields that?)

Edited by dhellers, 04 February 2013 - 11:51 AM.

[nighthob]

That second link doesn't work, so I have no idea who you were citing. One poster has made the same post in about seven different threads now, indicating that we should deal Garnett for Bledsoe now and then later deal Bledsoe for a high lottery pick or an all star big man over the summer. That first link you cited was my response to that oft-repeated post, that if they were trading KG it was because they were in full rebuild mode and that it would be Rondo outbound as part of a tear it down this year and next strategy and that they weren't getting an a young big man or a high lottery pick for Bledsoe.

 

This summer everyone's lined up for Howard, Paul and Smith, once they're signed I expect the losers to go looking for a consolation prize, and that's when I expect a Rondo deal because his value will be as high as it will ever get then.

Edited by nighthob, 04 February 2013 - 11:48 AM.

[Scott Cooper]

Do we need to do something?  is there any way to make us better THIS year?  I'm actually enjoying the RondoLess Celts so far (small sample size) and like the way that the offense is working.  

 

Is it so wrong to want to see this team in the playoffs and face Miami or whomever in a best of 7?  

 

I understand those who think that if there is no chance of a championship then let's trade all of our cornerstones who will net draft picks for the future, but I'm not ready to give up on this year.  

[Brickowski]

I don't think Rondo is tradeable until he proves that he has successfully rehabbed is torn ACL.  So, the rebuild should be on hold, except in the unlikely event that Ainge can turn KG or PP into a promising young big man.

 

And yes, its nice to watch some good basketball for a change.

Edited by Brickowski, 04 February 2013 - 03:13 PM.

[nighthob]

It isn't the huge deal it used to be for the little guys. 

[wutang112878]

Is it so wrong to want to see this team in the playoffs and face Miami or whomever in a best of 7?  

 

There are just some of us that see the Celts flaws and the rapid aging of KG and PP, and dont want to have to watch a 7 game series against a healthy Heat or Bulls team and watch the Celts get embarrassed.

[Scott Cooper]

I actually meant to post that last thing in the Rondo/Sully NOW WHAT?  thread.