Are the 2015-2016 Celtics better or worse than the 2014-2015 Celtics?

[zenter]

Not at all. I think even without Thomas/Sullinger, they're a long ways from being a tanking team.
 
I just want to acquire good assets, and the Celtics have too many players to give minutes to. Winslow was a plausible pick at #2 this year. It's probably a bad sign that he fell to 10, but I still like him a lot as a player.

 

If you're building around young players, a high upside 19 year old swingman like Winslow is probably a better fit than a 5'8" bench scorer. I like Lil' Zeke, and if the Celtics had drafted him in 2011 they would probably have another title. But the Celtics might be another 2-3 years getting the mix right, and guys Lil' Zeke's size don't have a great track record of lasting. He's a win now kind of guy that really helps a team like the 2016 Heat.

 
Okay. My lack of college player knowledge means Winslow is an unknown quantity and I'm alwasy skeptical of draft picks versus a guy who clearly disrupts defenses. I defer to those who know more. If Winslow (or Rozier) can adequately wreak similar havoc, I'd be less worried about losing Thomas.

 

[Cellar-Door]

Also of note: Dragic and Thomas did not at all work well together in PHX. I really doubt that MIA wants to re-create that dynamic at the expense of a guy they likely turned down significant assets for on draft night.

 

[bowiac]

Also of note: Dragic and Thomas did not at all work well together in PHX. I really doubt that MIA wants to re-create that dynamic at the expense of a guy they likely turned down significant assets for on draft night.

This is a good point.
 
I like Thomas a lot, but I do think Winslow has more upside, even if this trade is probably unrealistic because of the Thomas/Dragic dynamic.

 

[Cellar-Door]

This is a good point.
 
I like Thomas a lot, but I do think Winslow has more upside, even if this trade is probably unrealistic because of the Thomas/Dragic dynamic.

Oh I would do it in a heartbeatif I was Danny. I just think even beyond the dynamic it isn't realistic. The Celtics got Thomas for what even then was projected as one of the last few picks in the draft. Considering that the Celtics offered 4 picks at least 2 much better and maybe all 4 better than the one traded for Thomas in an attempt to move to 9 and get Winslow. The idea that Thomas' value is such that when paired with someone like Sullinger he could get Winslow doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[bowiac]

Oh I would do it in a heartbeatif I was Danny. I just think even beyond the dynamic it isn't realistic. The Celtics got Thomas for what even then was projected as one of the last few picks in the draft. Considering that the Celtics offered 4 picks at least 2 much better and maybe all 4 better than the one traded for Thomas in an attempt to move to 9 and get Winslow. The idea that Thomas' value is such that when paired with someone like Sullinger he could get Winslow doesn't make much sense to me.

Well, it depends on what the perception of Winslow is around the league. The idea that Thomas could be paired with Sullinger for the 10th overall pick isn't so crazy. The issue is that Winslow fell to the 10th in the first place. We don't know if the Heat view him as a top talent who miraculously slipped, or what.

 

[wutang112878]

I'm trying to talk myself into liking Danny's vision so bare with me.  
 
Lets try to envision where we will be at the start of free agency in 2016:

• Before free agency next year we had roughly $24M in cap commitments, then add in the $12M for Johnson, $7M for Crowder and $5M for Jerebko and thats another $24M bringing it to $48M.  Add in like (too lazy to look it up and calculate this) but like $4-5M in rookie salary this year and the same for next year which will be 'cap holds' at the start of free agency, bringing us up to $58M for 16/17 at the start of free agency.
• The 2016 cap is projected to be roughly $90M and a 30% max guy would be $27M and we'd have roughly $32M in space and if Danny wanted more space I'm assuming he could pretty easily shed salary in the form of dumping Bradley which gives us more wiggle room.  
• Draft pick wise for 2016: we have the Nets pick which is the big prize, our pick, possibly the Dallas pick (top 7 protected) and possibly the T-Wolves pick (top 12 protected).
• Looking further out, in 2017 we can swap with the Nets and in 2018 we have our pick and the Nets pick.

Now imagine trying to sell a genuine max worthy player on coming here.  We've got a team with tremendous depth and hopefully some real blossoming pieces.  Hopefully we just cashed in on some real talent in the 2016 draft, and when you look at 2017 & 2018 and the hopefully horrible Nets team there are even more reinforcements coming.  Or alternatively at that point we just go into full on 'trade for the blue chips' mode and we trade all our minor pieces for real pieces you can win a title with.
 
So the future is bright, but my goodness this team is a mess.  I think Johnson is probably more of an addition than Bass is a subtraction and yes we added the rookies but we are still going to be plagued by the same problem that we dont have a real 'star' that can carry the team when times get tough which means we will probably be slightly better but still mediocre.  However, just think of the summer of 2016 that should be a very, very exciting time and I really, really hope we are selling Stevens on this idea as well as I would be very sad to see him leave without ever getting to coach some real elite talent for the Celtics.

 

[TroyOLeary]

I think hoping the Celtics are going to land a superstar in free agency is insane, personally.  First of all, everybody's going to have cap room next offseason.  The Celtics won't be in any sort of select group in that respect.  Second, who are you imagining them making a play for?  They're not getting Durant, they're almost certainly not getting Horford.  Beyond those two I don't see a lot of UFA to be excited about, and I don't see any star-caliber RFA that aren't just getting matched.

 

[zenter]

How about buying low on a guy who fills a need, like Roy Hibbert? Many ways to make the trade work and Larry Bird is ready to get rid of him.

He's not your elite rim protector, but he's definitely a step in the right direction and a rental.

 

[Devizier]

Don't know what the Celtics would send for Hibbert. The Mavs first rounder?

 

[radsoxfan]

Is anyone expecting the Pacers to get anything for Hibbert? He looks at least semi-cooked.

My sense was that they would be happy to dump him for next to nothing. I seriously hope it's not to the Celtics.

 

[amfox1]

Is anyone expecting the Pacers to get anything for Hibbert? He looks at least semi-cooked.

My sense was that they would be happy to dump him for next to nothing. I seriously hope it's not to the Celtics.

 
Mavs and Knicks seem to be the top two.  And, yes, it would be for bubkes.  And, no, I cannot see the Celtics interested; he does not fit the type of offense they run.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

Don't know what the Celtics would send for Hibbert. The Mavs first rounder?

God, no. That Mavs pick is looking more and more like it can be low-lottery which gives us some interesting "Trade up" scenarios when packaged with our own #1, the Nets #1, and/or one of our current players. Ainge would be foolish to give up that asset for a short term whatever that Hibbert provides.

 

[In my lifetime]

God, no. That Mavs pick is looking more and more like it can be low-lottery which gives us some interesting "Trade up" scenarios when packaged with our own #1, the Nets #1, and/or one of our current players. Ainge would be foolish to give up that asset for a short term whatever that Hibbert provides.

Just a reminder that the Mavs pick is protected 1-7 until 2021.

 

[nighthob]

Just a reminder that the Mavs pick is protected 1-7 until 2021.

1-7 would be middle to high lottery. Low lottery picks would be in the 10-14 range.

 

[amfox1]

God, no. That Mavs pick is looking more and more like it can be low-lottery which gives us some interesting "Trade up" scenarios when packaged with our own #1, the Nets #1, and/or one of our current players. Ainge would be foolish to give up that asset for a short term whatever that Hibbert provides.

 
I would assume we are probably looking at one pick in the 4-6 area (BRK), one pick in the 8-10 area (BOS) and one pick in the 12-18 area (DAL).

 

[zenter]

I would assume we are probably looking at one pick in the 4-6 area (BRK), one pick in the 8-10 area (BOS) and one pick in the 12-18 area (DAL).

I think you underestimate just how bad the Eastern Conference is - and how little has changed so far in this respect. Because draft is about playoffs (not record) there's a very real chance the Cs pick around the same 12-18 range you're pegging for DAL.

EDIT: Still wouldn't mind taking a chance on Hibbert, but not for value more than, say, a high 2nd rounder.

 

[Cellar-Door]

 
I would assume we are probably looking at one pick in the 4-6 area (BRK), one pick in the 8-10 area (BOS) and one pick in the 12-18 area (DAL).

I don't think BRK will be bad enough for that, or that we will either. I'd guess one if not both BOS and BRK make the playoffs.
I'd say best case (not including a lucky lottery win) is that we just miss the playoffs as do Brooklyn and Dallas. That's 3 picks in the 9-15 range.
Look at it this way. Last year's 7 worst teams are probably this year's 5 worst again (MIN, LAL,PHI, NYK, ORL) those were the clear worst 5 and I don't think any has improved enough to get out of there (Maybe the Knicks have improved enough that a healthy year from Melo pulls them into the 8 seed race). The next tier was SAC, DEN, DET, CHA. SAC will benefit some from a healthy Cousins, but that team is still bad, DEN is trying to sell assets to tank, DET probably got worse losing Monroe, and CHA hasn't improved much. So even if we say 1 or 2 of those teams make a surprising leap... Top 7 looks locked up.

 

[amfox1]

I don't think BRK will be bad enough for that, or that we will either. I'd guess one if not both BOS and BRK make the playoffs.
I'd say best case (not including a lucky lottery win) is that we just miss the playoffs as do Brooklyn and Dallas. That's 3 picks in the 9-15 range.

 
I don't think BOS or BRK will sniff the playoffs, as currently constructed.  I don't see any of the top 6 in the East missing the playoffs, plus MIA and IND should leapfrog BOS and BRK and get back into the playoffs.  
 
As for DAL, I would put them in the scrum with POR, LAC, PHX and NO for the last three seeds in the West.  Even with the moves they made, they are not on the SA/GS/HOU/OKC/MEM tier, and DAL is so shallow depth-wise that any significant injury could send them into the lottery.

 

[nighthob]

I don't think BRK will be bad enough for that, or that we will either. I'd guess one if not both BOS and BRK make the playoffs.
I'd say best case (not including a lucky lottery win) is that we just miss the playoffs as do Brooklyn and Dallas. That's 3 picks in the 9-15 range.
Look at it this way. Last year's 7 worst teams are probably this year's 5 worst again (MIN, LAL,PHI, NYK, ORL) those were the clear worst 5 and I don't think any has improved enough to get out of there (Maybe the Knicks have improved enough that a healthy year from Melo pulls them into the 8 seed race). The next tier was SAC, DEN, DET, CHA. SAC will benefit some from a healthy Cousins, but that team is still bad, DEN is trying to sell assets to tank, DET probably got worse losing Monroe, and CHA hasn't improved much. So even if we say 1 or 2 of those teams make a surprising leap... Top 7 looks locked up.

The top six teams in the east are all locked up. Toronto might get a couple of games worse, and thanks to the new seeding structure are no longer guaranteed a top four seed. But they're still going to win 46-48 games when all is said and done, and they have multiple players that would be the best player on the 2016 Celtics.

Two of the EC teams that missed the playoffs did so because their stars missed most of the year. Indiana is getting Paul George back, got a player in the draft that will have a much bigger impact than any Boston draftee, and added a significant player in free agency. Unless you expect Chris Bosh to get blood clots again, the Heat are getting Bosh for a full season, have Goran Dragic for the full season, and won't need as much from Wade this year. Oh, and they also added a draftee that will have a bigger impact than anyone Boston drafted. So, yeah, right now the Celtics look like they're going to be the 2016 version of last year's Hornets.

Also of note, Scott Skiles has a long track record of getting young teams to play way over their heads, so I wouldn't count on Orlando being a bottom five team again (especially since they have some actual perimeter defenders on that squad). As for the Knicks, they openly started throwing games by December of last year. They won't be doing that this year because they're not getting a first round pick.

As of today I have the Pistons on my short list of teams that win a lot of games in the post ASB period that will have people talking about how they've made the leap. They have finally dumped the two center lineup, drafted a pretty solid SF, have Reggie Jackson generating points, and another year's improvement from KCP. I fully expect to see them close the season on a 20-10 run and challenge for the 8th seed.

 

[Cellar-Door]

The top six teams in the east are all locked up. Toronto might get a couple of games worse, and thanks to the new seeding structure are no longer guaranteed a top four seed. But they're still going to win 46-48 games when all is said and done, and they have multiple players that would be the best player on the 2016 Celtics.

Two of the EC teams that missed the playoffs did so because their stars missed most of the year. Indiana is getting Paul George back, got a player in the draft that will have a much bigger impact than any Boston draftee, and added a significant player in free agency. Unless you expect Chris Bosh to get blood clots again, the Heat are getting Bosh for a full season, have Goran Dragic for the full season, and won't need as much from Wade this year. Oh, and they also added a draftee that will have a bigger impact than anyone Boston drafted. So, yeah, right now the Celtics look like they're going to be the 2016 version of last year's Hornets.

Also of note, Scott Skiles has a long track record of getting young teams to play way over their heads, so I wouldn't count on Orlando being a bottom five team again (especially since they have some actual perimeter defenders on that squad). As for the Knicks, they openly started throwing games by December of last year. They won't be doing that this year because they're not getting a first round pick.

As of today I have the Pistons on my short list of teams that win a lot of games in the post ASB period that will have people talking about how they've made the leap. They have finally dumped the two center lineup, drafted a pretty solid SF, have Reggie Jackson generating points, and another year's improvement from KCP. I fully expect to see them close the season on a 20-10 run and challenge for the 8th seed.

The reason people are saying Indiana and Miami will be back is a major reason to think at least 1 of them (or the top 6) won't make the playoffs. Guys get hurt every year, and most teams can't afford it. Miami also is an old team, they are going to have at least Wade miss games. I'd say the last 3 spots in the East is likely a dogfight between: IND, MIA, BOS, BRK, and whichever of the 4-6 teams has the most injuries.
 
Edit- Also IND needs to make some moves, Paul George is great, but losing David West has made them very lacking up front, and their only addition looks to be Monta Ellis. I don't think any team outside the top 4 is a lock for anything in the East. There are a lot of pretty mediocre teams.

 

[nighthob]

I think you underestimate just how bad the Eastern Conference is - and how little has changed so far in this respect. Because draft is about playoffs (not record) there's a very real chance the Cs pick around the same 12-18 range you're pegging for DAL.

The three teams on the playoff cusp for the East last year drafted 9, 10, & 11. So a realistic forecast for the Boston pick is 8-11. Brooklyn's still tough to call, they locked up their young "stars" long term, but are still looking to unload Joe Johnson and Deron Williams. They could win anywhere from 18-35 games and I wouldn't be the least surprised. So that pick is a total wildcard. Dallas is also tough to forecast until we see how well Parsons and Matthews return from catastrophic injury. But their PG position is so awful, and they have so little playmaking everywhere else on the floor they look like a team that's going to struggle offensively. Add in the depth issues and I think they're going to be one of those teams that win 42-44 games and misses the playoffs.

 

[nighthob]

The reason people are saying Indiana and Miami will be back is a major reason to think at least 1 of them (or the top 6) won't make the playoffs. Guys get hurt every year, and most teams can't afford it. Miami also is an old team, they are going to have at least Wade miss games. I'd say the last 3 spots in the East is likely a dogfight between: IND, MIA, BOS, BRK, and whichever of the 4-6 teams has the most injuries.
 
Edit- Also IND needs to make some moves, Paul George is great, but losing David West has made them very lacking up front, and their only addition looks to be Monta Ellis. I don't think any team outside the top 4 is a lock for anything in the East. There are a lot of pretty mediocre teams.

All of those teams have multiple players better than any Celtic player. And eventually Indy will move Hibbert to someone to plug the role of bench depth 4/5. Boston is going to get beaten up for the first 2/3 of the year when the good teams are trying to win. They'll try hard, but the teams right behind them made much bigger improvements in the offseason.

 

[bowiac]

All of those teams have multiple players better than any Celtic player. And eventually Indy will move Hibbert to someone to plug the role of bench depth 4/5. Boston is going to get beaten up for the first 2/3 of the year when the good teams are trying to win. They'll try hard, but the teams right behind them made much bigger improvements in the offseason.

I'd take Marcus Smart, this year, ahead of anyone on Brooklyn. It's hard to really get into how good the Celtics will be because its pretty certain a couple trades are coming, but presuming they don't move any of their key pieces, I'd bet on the Celtics ahead of Brooklyn. They were a better team last year, they're younger, and they have made bigger additions in the offseason.
 
The Celtics and Pacers look like a coin flip to me. Paul George isn't like a lock to be all the way back, and while Monta is a nice piece for them, they're losing real talent in West and maybe Hibbert. Gun to my head, I'd take the Celtics there too. 
 
The Bucks are harder to peg. Monroe is good, but losing Dudley is going to hurt. Michael Carter-Williams stinks, but can probably improve, and I didn't believe much in Knight in the first place. That looks like a tossup too, but I guess I'd take the Bucks, since they're also young.
 
The Heat look (significantly) better than the Celtics to me.
 
The Celtics still look like a playoff team to me.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

Milwaukee adds Jabari Parker and Monroe while The Greek Freak is a year older......I'll take that over losing Jared Dudley. They should be a much better team challenging the Top-4.

I'm with nighthob as it stands today with us at 9-11 on paper.

 

[nighthob]

I'd take Marcus Smart, this year, ahead of anyone on Brooklyn. It's hard to really get into how good the Celtics will be because its pretty certain a couple trades are coming, but presuming they don't move any of their key pieces, I'd bet on the Celtics ahead of Brooklyn. They were a better team last year, they're younger, and they have made bigger additions in the offseason.

I don't expect the Nets to do much next year. As I said, they could win anywhere between 18-35 games and it wouldn't shock me. I'll be stunned if they win more than that.
 

The Celtics and Pacers look like a coin flip to me. Paul George isn't like a lock to be all the way back, and while Monta is a nice piece for them, they're losing real talent in West and maybe Hibbert. Gun to my head, I'd take the Celtics there too. 

I mean if it's a two headed coin and it's heads the Pacers win tails the Celtics lose, then it's a coin flip. 50% of Paul George last year was considerably better than any Celtic. He won't be getting worse. And it looks like the Pacers are about to generate a TPE for Hibbert so that they can add more depth at the 4/5.

 

[bowiac]

Milwaukee adds Jabari Parker and Monroe while The Greek Freak is a year older......I'll take that over losing Jared Dudley. They should be a much better team challenging the Top-4.

I think the Knight / Michael Carter-Williams differential is being missed here. They went 11-18 after trading Knight. Various RPM-type metrics don't like Knight very much, but MCW is pretty awful.
 
They were about as good as the Celtics overall last year, and I'm not sure they improved more than the Celtics did. I'd lean towards the Bucks, but I think its close.
 

I mean if it's a two headed coin and it's heads the Pacers win tails the Celtics lose, then it's a coin flip. 50% of Paul George last year was considerably better than any Celtic. He won't be getting worse. And it looks like the Pacers are about to generate a TPE for Hibbert so that they can add more depth at the 4/5.

Paul George played 6 games last year, and looked less than great in those 6 (tough to look good while shooting .367%). 

 

[HomeRunBaker]

I think the Knight / Michael Carter-Williams differential is being missed here. They went 11-18 after trading Knight. Various RPM-type metrics don't like Knight very much, but MCW is pretty awful.
 
They were about as good as the Celtics overall last year, and I'm not sure they improved more than the Celtics did. I'd lean towards the Bucks, but I think its close.
 
Paul George played 6 games last year, and looked less than great in those 6 (tough to look good while shooting .367%). 

I agree that MCW at this stage is not a quality PG however the Bucks added Greivas who solidifies the position. I disagree that adding Monroe, Parker and an older Freak doesn't improve them much. I don't feel the Celtics are even in the same league as the Bucks who I expect to contend for a Top 3-4 seed.

The drop off last year following the Knight trade was more timing than anything else as you can't smoothly integrate a new leader in the middle of the season especially when he is very young and a downgrade.

I see Indiana and Miami easily leaping us by returning their injured superstars with Orlando being last years overachieving Celtics team who was the prior years overachieving Charlotte team. We don't really have a lot of talent at the top of this roster.

 

[bowiac]

I really disagree with respect to this "Celtics as the this year's Charlotte" comparison. Just going off VORP, Charlotte won 43 games in 2013-2014, then got rid of their best player (McRoberts), while their second and third best players (Jefferson and Kemba) missed a bunch of games. There's nothing magical here. Get rid of your best player, suffer some injuries, and you'll regress.
 
Now the Celtics could get hurt too, but it's not like they were especially healthy last year. Sullinger, Smart and Olynyk all missed extended time, while Thomas and Crowder weren't even on the team for much of the year.
 
Maybe the Celtics won't catch the Bucks, if not, I suspect its cause Kidd is the point guard whisperer rather than the Celtics being doomed for regression. I don't have a good feel for that Bucks team. If the Celtics Vegas total comes in under 40 wins however, I can't imagine not ending up betting on the over however.

 

[zenter]

I know moratorium hasn't ended yet, but by this time in 07 and 13, you had a lot of chatter about the moves DA was engineering. I'm decreasingly confident any move will be made to solve the backcourt depth & frontcourt lack of depth problems.

There are too many guys who legitimately deserve NBA minutes and not enough difference makers. Even if Smart, Sully, Bradley, and a pick or 2 were all up for grabs, who would that bring back?

 

[wutang112878]

There are too many guys who legitimately deserve NBA minutes and not enough difference makers. Even if Smart, Sully, Bradley, and a pick or 2 were all up for grabs, who would that bring back?

 
This is a great topic.  
 
As far as a specific player, I think Cousins would have been a great idea and while I think that ship has sailed, its a good strategy to basically find a relatively young piece who you take a bit of a gamble on which allows you to potentially get a top 20 type of player.  However those opportunities are rather rare so at this point, I think we have to start thinking about some different strategies beyond just recreating the magical summer of 07.  
 
One option that I've been thinking about recently is trying to make moves now to get some hopefully elite draft pieces for next year.  Yes we have the Nets pick which could be promising but perhaps we could find a foolish team like say the Hornets who might want a few of our younger pieces now, plus our 1st rounder next year and be willing to give us theirs but do that now before its draft time and they fall in love with a player.  If you do that your gamble is that you are receiving a pick that you dont know much about which I'm sure will get folks riled up but we also just saw that the moving up on draft night strategy is also pretty risky and at this point the last thing this team needs is to collect more #15+ picks.  That strategy might seem kind of crazy, but I think we its certainly worth having a debate of some more radical strategies.

 

[bowiac]

There are too many guys who legitimately deserve NBA minutes and not enough difference makers. Even if Smart, Sully, Bradley, and a pick or 2 were all up for grabs, who would that bring back?

My guess is Ainge will be heavily involved with Cousins if that Karl situation finally ignites. I'm not sure anyone could really top Smart and the Brooklyn picks for instance.

 

[zenter]

My guess is Ainge will be heavily involved with Cousins if that Karl situation finally ignites. I'm not sure anyone could really top Smart and the Brooklyn picks for instance.

With Rondo, Belinelli, and Koufos as complementary pieces, I'm not sure that Karl will outlast Cousins - Vivek & Vlade are in a corner and they would rather not side with a coach who can't get along with the core centerpiece of any future run. In my mind, Cousins is off the table until/unless things go quite badly during the season and they decide to blow it up.

So, if that's not a possibility right now, what is? Is there a splash left to make?

 

[Devizier]

So, if that's not a possibility right now, what is? Is there a splash left to make?

 
Favors, I guess. He's not exactly a big splash.

 

[bowiac]

I agree that short of Cousins, there's nobody to move pieces for. Certainly not Smart.
 
I don't know what Ainge is thinking, but if Cousins isn't going to be an option, then I'd move some current players into future picks. Something like Bradley for a late first round pick maybe, or Sullinger for something a better. This is basically stalling, rolling over the assets until eventually a star (Cousins, or someone else) is being shopped. Like you said, there's not enough minutes to go around, and the clock is ticking on the Celtics' control of Sullinger, Olynyk, and Thomas. This isn't a great option, but it's the best one available it seems.
 
It's life in the NBA. You either need to get lucky with a star being shopped, becoming a free agent, or stumble into one via the draft. There's no sure things.

 

[bowiac]

This basically echoes my sense that the Celtics are being underrated here, from the creator of RPM:
 
https://twitter.com/JerryEngelmann/status/618017203191947264/photo/1

 

[Cellar-Door]

This basically echoes my sense that the Celtics are being underrated here, from the creator of RPM:
 

https://twitter.com/JerryEngelmann/status/618017203191947264/photo/1

https://twitter.com/JerryEngelmann/status/618017203191947264/photo/1

link to tweet
If I were making predictions right now I'd have something similar. I would probably swap the Bucks/Heat tier with the Celtics/Raptors tier, but everyone is pretty flawed after the top 4.

 

[Cellar-Door]

Phone double post

 

[bowiac]

If I were making predictions right now I'd have something similar. I would probably swap the Bucks/Heat tier with the Celtics/Raptors tier, but everyone is pretty flawed after the top 4.

I'm more optimistic about the Heat than he is, although they're a high risk team (Whiteside, Wade), and there's a pretty compelling counterpoint that they're bringing back basically the entirety of a team that won 37 games last year...
 
The Bucks I just can't see as being on another tier from the Celtics, but I like Amir Johnson a lot, so maybe that's what's clouding things.

 

[Reardon's Beard]

Ultimately a big part of the plan (IMO) has been to develop young players not simply as singular talents, but develop them together within the system as a team while Stevens sharpens his NBA tactics. The next big free agent class worthy of max money will see a strong foundation in place to be successful. Young, cost controlled talent. A world class coach and a storied history that was revived by the Pierce and KG days. I was immensely surprised by the quality of play last year. I think they outplay last years squad and end up in the middle somewhere but it will take one or two superstars to put them over the top - but who knows, that could develop with Smart and some of these other kids as well. I was surprised last year and could be even more surprised this year.

 

[Cellar-Door]

The Bucks' starting lineup will be a ton more talented than the Celtics so I have a hard time seeing them a tier below. With the addition of Monroe, Parker back, and further development from Middleton/Greek Freak, I think this team has some real growth potential next year. The Celtics, on the other hand, are a prime candidate for regression.

I can see the argument though. They only won 1 more game than the Celtics, and traded away their best player.
 Their offense was really really bad last year, so the question is does adding 2 forwards offset not having a PG. That's the big issue, they traded a good PG who was their only starter who could shoot 3s away, and brought back a non-shooter. Their Spacing is going to be garbage, and they're adding two poor defenders to what was a good defensive team. So it will be interesting to see how much if at all they improve. Have to assume they score a big more, but probably give up more as well.

 

[luckiestman]

The Bucks' starting lineup will be a ton more talented than the Celtics so I have a hard time seeing them a tier below. With the addition of Monroe, Parker back, and further development from Middleton/Greek Freak, I think this team has some real growth potential next year. The Celtics, on the other hand, are a prime candidate for regression.

 
I think the Bucks blew it by trading Knight. I have no idea why they did that. I think he is a good player. They sucked after they got rid of him too. 
 
To me they are a big question mark. I think the Heat have a lot of upside though.
 
I know the Celtics are going to go out every game and play like maniacs. Johnson giving them anything at the 5 should really help their defense and not having Rondo and Green for the first half of the season should also help. Not having those two guys play was almost like getting an all star. 

 

[nighthob]

Monroe is a terrible defensive PF because he can't do perimeter defense. He is not a terrible defensive center. It's really the only position he can play. It's just that he was the second best center on the Pistons.

 

[Cellar-Door]

The 2nd half of last season means very little given that they'll have Parker back and Monroe. As of right now, I agree that spacing may be an issue but Middleton is a very good shooter. I also expect Parker to show more 3pt range this year. I just like the talent in that starting lineup.

Well it matters, the question is how much. The reason they struggled down the stretch was terrible PG play, Monroe and Parker don't really fix that. It is possible that Parker helps out in spacing the floor, but the problem of defenders going under every pick, and sagging off MCW isn't solved.
 

Monroe is a terrible defensive PF because he can't do perimeter defense. He is not a terrible defensive center. It's really the only position he can play. It's just that he was the second best center on the Pistons.

This isn't really accurate. He's much better on offense as a C, but on defense he actually may be worse at C looking at the breakdowns of the 3 years he split time, he was worse at C 2 of the 3 years. He can't stop anyone at the rim is his biggest problem. He's not a TERRIBLE defender but he's definitely below average at any position.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

The Bucks' starting lineup will be a ton more talented than the Celtics so I have a hard time seeing them a tier below. With the addition of Monroe, Parker back, and further development from Middleton/Greek Freak, I think this team has some real growth potential next year. The Celtics, on the other hand, are a prime candidate for regression.

This is where I'm at too. The Bucks add all this talent while Boston would need to overachieve again this time for an entire season. It's two teams headed in opposite directions based off this offseason with what we added compared to what other EC teams have returning from injury. I don't really see the case for Boston improving against our competitors with Parker/Monroe, Bosh and George added to our main competitors, Orlando getting an impact coach for a young team, and even the Knicks returning Carmelo while signing Lopez and Afflalo.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

The improvements made by the rest of the East are a bit overblown. 
 
Milwaukee added Monroe, which is a nice enough addition to the offense, but one that will likely be offset by the Knight to MCW downgrade. Parker will likely be a solid player in this league, but it's very rare that a rookie adds positive value in his first season. They probably have less shooting than any team in the league. I still think they're a couple of years away. 
 
The Knicks, with Melo, were on pace for 13 wins last year. I like what they've done, but I like it primarily because they didn't go for the quick fix. Their starting 5 will be something like Galloway or Calderon/Afflalo/Melo/Porzingis/Lopez. An improvement over last year, sure, but not enough of one to get into the 8 spot.
 
Indiana gets George back, but loses West and Hibbert. At their best they were a team that couldn't score points but defended well; a lot of that was due to Hibbert. I think they've regressed enough from where they were previously to seriously question whether they're a playoff team, even with a healthy Paul George. 
 
Orlando won 25 games last year and really didn't do much of anything outside of add Scott Skiles. They don't seem like a factor to me at all.
 
I think Miami's being underrated a bit, but I do understand the reasoning. 
 
As for the C's, I think a full season of Thomas makes a huge difference. They addressed their biggest weakness with Amir Johnson, and I see no reason why they won't be right where they were last year.  

 

[bowiac]

GMB nailed it I think. It's hard to know what to make of Jabari, but it would be pretty surprising if he were good this year. Monroe is a good add, but Knight/MCW is a major issue. They also threw away Dudley, and while you can doubt how good he is going forward, he was an important shooter for them.
 
The Bucks are a higher upside team than the Celtics, but in terms of mean expectation, I think the Celtics are probably a hair better. They're young, they won 40 games last year, they weren't especially healthy (Smart, Sullinger, Olynyk), and they made two somewhat significant additions (Johnson, Thomas), and their most significant departure is Brandon Bass. This does not look like a team primed for regression.

 

[nighthob]

Unfortunately any time good teams extended effort last year, the Celtics were left in the dust. I don't think teams will suddenly all change strategy and everyone approach every game with the "Who cares?" attitude that they do the back leg when Boston did all its damage last year.If you want to say that they'll do it again on the back leg this year, fine. But the 9th and 10th best teams in the east have massive upgrades coming while Boston's upgrade is a defensive roleplayer with bad ankles.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

Unfortunately any time good teams extended effort last year, the Celtics were left in the dust. I don't think teams will suddenly all change strategy and everyone approach every game with the "Who cares?" attitude that they do the back leg when Boston did all its damage last year.If you want to say that they'll do it again on the back leg this year, fine. But the 9th and 10th best teams in the east have massive upgrades coming while Boston's upgrade is a defensive roleplayer with bad ankles.

 
I think subtracting Hibbert and West and adding Paul George isn't as clear cut of an upgrade as you make it seem. Their big man rotation consists of Ian Mahinmi, Luis Scola, Lavoy Allen and Chris Copeland at the moment. They already struggled mightily to score--even when Paul George was healthy--and they've lost their second option. And that doesn't even address the fact that the year they were good, Hibbert was an elite defensive player and they wont have that. 

 

[radsoxfan]

There isn't much of an argument that the Celtics true talent level will actually be worse.  Full seasons of IT and Crowder, adding Johnson, losing Bass, on the background of a young team with more players improving than declining. In a vacuum, this is a better team than 2014-2015. 
 
So a worse Celtics season assumes
 
1) they drastically outperformed last seasons true talent level, and cannot repeat that (possible, though I'm not sure it's the most likely scenario)
 
or
 
2) the rest of the East got so much better that it will overwhelm any Celtics improvement, leading to a worse record.  I suppose I can see this argument, mostly because there is a lot of uncertainty around the Heat, Pacers, and Bucks. If everything breaks right, they could all be good to very good.
 
 
Generally speaking, I'd side with the idea that (assuming at least average health) the Celtics true talent level is higher than last season, and even with the other possible mitigating factors, they are likely to at least be as good, if not better. 

 

[bowiac]

Unfortunately any time good teams extended effort last year, the Celtics were left in the dust. I don't think teams will suddenly all change strategy and everyone approach every game with the "Who cares?" attitude that they do the back leg when Boston did all its damage last year.If you want to say that they'll do it again on the back leg this year, fine. But the 9th and 10th best teams in the east have massive upgrades coming while Boston's upgrade is a defensive roleplayer with bad ankles.

That's life in the NBA for the mediocre teams. The Celtics had 13 wins against above average teams (by strength of schedule adjusted margin of victory) last year. The Bucks had 9. If you want to restrict that further, to the top 10 teams, that's six wins apiece.
 
Those numbers were 14 and 7 for the Pacers for those who think they're somehow in a different class.