The line I've bolded is part of the trouble I see in the blow it up faction, in how greedy sports fans are.
You're saying you'd be frustrated and disenchanted with a team that has a 10% chance of winning a title. In a 30 team league, that's a fantastic percentage. There are probably only 3-4 teams every year with a 10% chance or better of winning the title. I'd sign up for that chance in a second. That's before even figuring in that the team would still be competitive and entertaining in years they don't hit on that 10% chance.
If it was really a 10% chance every year, sure, but its virtually impossible to have a team with a 10% chance of winning every year for a decade, its impossible. To win an NBA title, you basically have to win 55 regular season games, in the past 30 years only 3 teams [05/06 Heat, 03/04 Pistons and 94/95 Rockets] have won a title without 55 wins. Hitting 55 wins doesnt mean you will win a title, but [and I dont have the numbers handy] I bet it gives you those 10% odds. In today's NBA its impossible to win 55 games a year over and over. Even stable well run organizations with elite, generational talent like the Lakers and Spurs have had down years. The 10% chance every year for a decade just isnt realistic. If you told me I could watch a 55 win team every year, then my answer would be sure.
My base assumption is that you can't get something for nothing. If one pursues a path that yields high returns (i.e.; maximize championships), it is sensible to assume that the downside risk is also high (i.e.; having to restart the rebuild)
IOW: You have a regrettable tendency to cherry pick.
Are you really saying that a competently done blow it up style rebuild will be nice and smooth. That you have some way of guaranteeing competence (did you know in 1990 that Celtics management would become incompetent?). More generally, since you find one example to be shredless, provide a properly drawn random sample of blow-it-ups, and note their results (such as: failure leading to another blowup, okay teams that fizzle, or construcdtion of a contender). And please don't start with OKC 2007 and SAS 1997 and call it a day.
It depends on how you define nice and smooth. Could blow this up right now and win 40-44 games a year and rebuild in 5? That is just not happening. You have to get out of NBA purgatory, where you have enough talent that you arent awful and dont get high picks, but not enough talent to really have a chance at winning. You dont want to be a 45 win team year after year, maybe uneducated fans might think you have a chance but you really have no chance and its truly impossible to get that elite piece you need to push you over the top.
I am not trying to evade your question on why a blowup will work, just listen to my logic for a second. You suggested that you cant justify a blowup as rational because it didnt work in the 90s. I explained the reasons the 90s were so bad, and pointed out that you can prove your hypothesis with 1 example or piece of evidence, thats fact. My reasoning behind wanting a blowup is this: I want to maximize the number of championships won, I think this team is done and we will not win with this core, I think the fastest way to rebuild and return the team to a championship level is to blow it up and avoid NBA purgatory. Getting back to the 'are blowups justified by the success rate', really its a pointless exercise. We define success differently, you have an appetite for flawed, entertaining teams and I do not, so we are going to define success differently. In my eyes, a blowup is nothing more than mercy killing, I dont want to pay $400 to fix my dryer if I can buy a new one for $500, at that point I say goodbye to my dryer and look to the next one, thats where I am with this team. You still see value in the dryer, thats fine we just see basketball differently.
As for 'did I know if the Celts management would suck in 1990', I didnt know it with all of them. I completely realize and accept that there is risk associated with a blow up, management is a piece of that. I can tell you that Ainge has proven to be without a doubt the most competent GM we have had since Red, that doesnt mean that he will continue to be but I would much rather he navigate through a blowup than Chris Wallace or Pitino and I could have told you at the time of their hirings that both of them were incompetent.
BTW: a competent management that would do a good job of minimzing the pain of a rebuild should also be able to maintain a watchable sub-champion team for a while.
What would I do with the current Celtics? I like to watch this current version. Let's see what they can accomplish during the remainder of the season. Give PP another year; seeing him retire as a Celtic would be positive thing (i.e.; worth forgoing a #15 draft pick).
And then in 2014: a core of a wizened Rondo, a fixed up Sullinger, a Green fulfilling his potential, a Bradley entering his prime, a Lee with a home,..... that's not far fetched, and might present an attractive opportunity to free agents in 2014. Would Lebron be interested (say, if the Heat collapse)? Would Kevin Love escape MN for this? Or Anderson Varajeo, LaMarcus Aldridge, Marcin Gortat...
If it just doesn't work and 2014 is a hopeless bust, rebuild then.
BTW: spare me the pipe dream accusations, I am not counting on Lebron becoming a Celtic. But a portfolio of dozen or so low probablity free-agent possiblities is not so different (in risk/reward terms) than a portfolio of a several draft-picks prospects
What do you mean by smooth transition? Like we keep KG and PP and win 45 games next year, have no shot to win, get embarrassed in the first round of the playoffs, repeat that the following year, and slowing gracefully morph into a 35 win team? Completely your opinion, but I think thats an incompetent work by an NBA GM. He should be working to expedite the process of bottoming out, to speed up the process of ascending. Thats just my opinion on how things should be done.
Just trying to understand your opinion, but do you really give this team a chance to win a title? Like do you think its a 10% chance or 5% chance? Personally I think its 1% at this point, and as such I just dont like watching them. I am assuming you find entertainment value in watching a team with a 5% chance play out those odds?
When you talk about the 2014 core, are you trying to win a title with that core? We can debate if Rondo could be the best player on a team to win the title, but I would say its probably considered fact among NBA GMs that if he is your best player and you want to win a title, your #2 player better be the best or one of the best #2 talents in the league. No one on the current roster under 30 has the potential to be that player. Love and Aldridge are good, but I dont think the could the #2 guy on a team that wins a title, let alone with a #1 talent that shoudnt really be your #1. When you mention Varaejo and Gortat, I have to ask nicely if you really know your basketball. Neither one of them are really difference maker players, their hustle is great but they are not making a difference on a team with the Celts 2014 core, and both will be past their prime in 2014.
KG came to a worse core.
This is way offbase. He went to a team that won 24 games, but saw a promising young PG in Rondo, a quality young C in Perk, knew that Pierce was coming back healthy and what he could do, and we had just traded for Ray. The core was a projection as it had proven nothing, but once it was put together the general consensus around the league was that it was a championship caliber roster. Also remember that KG was not willing to come here before the trade for Ray Allen, he looked at that same exact core and said it didnt have a chance.