The Window and Risk Management
by Jeff Clark on Feb 10, 2009 10:39 AM EST
in Boston Celtics Articles
Email
Print
by Eric Weiss
There has been much talk and trepidation about the Celtics this season. Despite the glossy record and the long winning streaks, there has been a noticeable decline in dominance against the league's elite and Boston has had more inconsistencies than a season ago.
Much of the un-ease seems to stem from the past off-season free agent (FA) decisions, where Ainge's fiscal restraint and the lack of impact veteran additions caused quite a stir with the crowd. While Boston's competition was sure to make moves to close the gap, Boston looked to rely more on internal development to show a stronger side.
There has been quite a bit of venom spewed over this last point recently, as the team has failed to overcome some of its stiffest competition. With a fan base fixated on the here and now, the recent losses have made a controversial off-season look like a "give-away" year in a window many speculate to be no more than this season and next.
While it remains to be seen whether or not this team has what it takes to repeat as champions, that chapter isn't closed. Health, continuity, and the prospect of future additions still loom as possibilities over the next 30 games. The playoffs tend to be a different animal altogether as well.
But, considering where this team is at now, let's look at some of the factors that led us to where we are and try for a second to piece together what we think we know about this team instead of what we think we know about the game.
There are a number of factors:
1. There is a team budget, no matter what. It is flexible for the right level of player at the right length of contract, but that's it - this isn't Yankee land. Boston is over the luxury tax and 1 MLE player is going to cost double the money - forget about two - you'd be spending 20-22 million to have two 5-6 million dollar players - those players better be HIGHLY productive.
2. Situational importance is huge - a Ray Allen is worth more on this team because you pay a premium for solidifying a necessary role on your team - Ray fills a much larger strategic role than Posey for instance - consistent #1 option scorers are paid the highest of any position for a reason - they are more valuable than intangible-laden role players, no matter what - there are less of them and every team needs them. The core of the payroll is built around GPA, as is the eventual flexibility of said payroll.
3. Considering point 1 as reality, Boston now has to put its estimate on the team "window" for title contention. Ainge continually mentioned competing for "5 or 6 seasons" when making before constructing this team, let's assume he meant it. You can disagree with the window projection, but its Ainge's plan, so only his opinion matters - time will tell if his strategy is sound.
4. Assuming it is sound, FA then becomes a multi-season game of selectivity. For the first 2-3 seasons the game is about playing the MLE card very selectively, getting highly movable low level veteran FAs, and using the waiver wire as a strategic asset. In those first 2-3 years the team has its starting 5 at their strongest, with 2 pieces increasing in ability as 3 pieces have subtle decline - this is the "2-3 year" window that people refer to.
5. Again, going off of this premise - Boston continues to acquire and develop younger assets with the back 4-5 slots of the bench in an effort to find players that will out-perform their rookie deals in year's 4-6 and thus become valuable commodities to both the rotation and the team's asset options. This is the stretch where the GPA trio is most likely to see significant decline. GPA is also highly likely to remain rotation caliber players in years 4-6 and their contract values will become half of what they currently are in successive seasons if they are re-signed. This opens up more liberal trade and FA options to the team as well if they deem any and all to be of less value than they command.
6. The Final premise - the notion that Rondo has a high probability to develop into an All Star and that Kevin Garnett will maintain starter level ability through his contract and potentially into another. KG has all the tell-tale signs of being one of the elite that can be highly productive deep into his late 30's. His ability to shoot, pass, rebound, and defend don't rely on speed and power as much as length and finesse. If he can lock down the PF spot for 4-6 season, the team is set at 3 position for the duration of that larger window.
Series play is also extremely different from regular season basketball, where every team is engaged in its own seasonal plot line. Its one thing to lose to an opponent and use lessons learned from that game weeks or months down the road, another to obsess over them for 48 hours or less and then go again. Teams develop different rhythms over a stretch of regular season play; the team you see in December may not be the team you face in February even if the personnel are relatively the same.
Boston doesn't have a fully functional Kendrick Perkins right now and they lost Scalabrine at a point where his skill set and actual effectiveness were at an all-time high. Sam Cassell was also clearly allowed to occupy a roster spot for some purpose, so considering his time in the system and his track record, its not hard to fathom that he will be the backup PG for the stretch run if the team fails to acquire a superior replacement. Judging Cassell's performance last season would not do justice to his career effectiveness leading up to the moment of his acquisition, nor would it factor in the exposure he now has to the system and role breakdown of the team.
Regardless, electing not to over-pursue FA options this past off-season appears to be more of a calculated risk than a miscalculation and irresponsible waste of a "window" year. There was no doubt that Ainge lost out on some key veteran additions - James Posey would be an obvious player he wished to retain. But, many FA players showed interest in this team and Boston extended offers to quite a few at all the "issue areas" most fans feel need to be addressed. If nothing else, this should show an understanding of the team's roster make-up and an ongoing concern for addressing them.
But with so much time to go before Boston heads home for the year, it appears plausible that there is more method than madness when it comes to how this team is to be built to compete now and in the future. Perhaps electing to take a higher-risk path toward contention this season is a reasonable risk if the plan is to have this group in the thick of things for more than just another year.
Who else has a more predictable path toward contention past 2010?
67 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
nice article Eric
I am mostly disappointed that the team hasn’t gotten more from Patrick O’Bryant, but that was a reasonable risk to take given his potential upside and low cost.
It all comes down to what happens in the playoffs. Ultimately if they win it again, no worries. If they don’t, we’ll be questioning Danny’s lack of action.
Planning for 4-5 years down the line is all well and good, but injuries can happen at any time, and I’m a fan of taking advantage of the here and now.
I was in support of letting Posey go rather than overpay him, so I have no room to complain. But if we lose the title based on our bench play, I’ll probably regret that support and second guess Danny like everyone else.
"Would I rather be feared or loved? Easy. Both. I want people to be afraid of how much they love me." Michael Scott
I agree to a point...
..and it depends on how the rest of the season plays out, but ALSO how this next off-season goes…Ainge was correct in assuming that the starting 5 would take a step up in play – something he banked on.
What remains to be seen is if he can add a couple of key waiver wire vets to bolster the bench or if the current roster has a mix of players that can win a title on their own – that hasn’t been answered yet, one way or another – one can only speculate at this point.
However, assuming that GPA has 3 years of “prime” basketball and then another 3 years of title-level ball with proper additions, the idea of not over-committing to Posey or any other modest FA vet makes more sense.
If the 2009 FA class is far superior to the 2008 class – which it is – and the current starting 5 are projected to improve – which they have – it seems to make sense to hold back on the big money acquisition available to them and play the waiver wire game one more year.
If Ainge had unlimited payroll he may very well have gone a different route, but POB, TA, House all represented place-holder value while the team awaits superior options…this is different than “planning for 4-5 years down the road.” This is planning for NEXT season, with an eye toward comepting in a larger window of 4-5 years.
If you commit 4 million to a Joe Smith last off-season or 5.6 million to James Posey, you lose out on the potential to add a Rasheed Wallace and a Grant Hill the following year based off money you’ve committed to specific roles on the team – ownership won’t just eat those contracts to sit guys on the bench and those roster spots are better spent on young, devloping players who can learn from the superior veterans in front of them.
…not to be lost is the manner in which the team loses – it it does – this season – If they are destroyed by Cleveland or LA and it is directly related to the bench that’s one thing, but if these are highly contested series that could go either way based on a couple of plays here and there, I believe its a prudent risk to not have over-committed the team this year to mediocre vets if superior ones are available for years 3,4,5…etc…
I think this team is a contender this year, albeit slightly more vulnerable in some areas than they could be…but if they are title worthy now, I’ll take the short-term hit to ensure a more significant impact move the following season or two…
That’s a strategic choice – agree with it or not – which is different than “throwing away” a year…
by BillfromBoston on Feb 10, 2009 9:27 AM EST up reply actions
Hmm...
I remember reading an interview with the Rays’ GM Andrew Friedman last spring, and he talked about the idea that when you are a small market team you make moves for the long-term. A team like the Rays doesn’t have the option of signing the big free agents, which has never proved to be the magic card to winning a pennant or a ring anyways. Friedman talks about building a farm team, surrounding those youngsters with some proven veterans that know how to win, and hoping that you can contend once every 5-7 years. They Rays were a contender this past year, and with some smart signing (and deadly pitching), they will be contenders in the AL East for a few years. Scary thought.
Unfortunately, I don’t have the ability to be patient for 5-7 years while my team builds to contend. I want my favorite teams to win every year. It’s as simple as that. While I know it is a difficult reality, it is how I feel. I learn how to cope. I was at the Celts/Lakers game and didn’t sleep for hours after getting home. The Spurs game ruined my lunch. The 02-03 and 04-05 seasons gave me a taste of what I hadn’t seen in so many years as a Celts fan: a team with a chance.
Since the 05 season, I so many ups and downs made the 2008 season meaningful and rewarding.
As long as we are contending every year, I am happy.
There is a reason I am not a player or in the front office: I don’t know what to do in those positions. I like my role of criticizing other peoples’ moves and playing Monday Morning QB. But I still want a ring every year.
My rambles: http://nbawithoutcable.wordpress.com
I don't think many disagree....
…with your sentiment – I certainly share it…I just believe in a plausible present and future mode of contention that doesn’t involve over-spending for marginal talent when superior options exist in the immediate future and the present team has a respectable chance to repeat…factor in the possibility of making additions with a similar impact to the previous season and I’m content to see how it plays out…
by BillfromBoston on Feb 10, 2009 1:17 PM EST up reply actions
Winner's Curse
There is a theory about overpaying against competitors known as “the winner’s curse.” If two oil companies are trying to outbid each other for the rights to drill on a piece of land that they know will prove lucrative, the winning company will most likely pay TOO MUCH for what they are really getting out of it. Where else does this apply? Sports.
In Boston, names like Renteria, Drew, Clement, Lugo (just to name a few), ring a certain bell: WE PAID TOO MUCH for marginalized talent because we thought we needed them more, and so we front the money so that our competitors wouldn’t get them.
The result? The winner’s curse: you overpay when you dive into the market (free agency market). That is the easy way out that rarely pays off in the end (look at the Yankees for the last 7 years). What matters more is making good decisions that will sustain a level of success over long periods of time, but playing for RIGHT NOW. Last year was the best example of that model— everything from trading away draft picks to get the other pieces of the puzzle, signing Cassell and PJ Brown, etc.
I don’t know where they go from here. I still think guys like Big Baby and TA are dispensable… the problem is they don’t really give much trade value on the market. You’d have to tag on draft picks, which can obviously be a deal breaker.
People want Ainge to make moves, but look at that bench: how much value do those guys really have that can get us what we need (length, reliable ball-handler, go-to scorer)????
My rambles: http://nbawithoutcable.wordpress.com
"there has been a noticeable decline in dominance against the league's elite "
Pretty easy to figure out…we have grudges against elite teams..because we knocked them out of the playoffs/finals…Last year there was none of that
by TheAncientRivalry on Feb 10, 2009 8:32 AM EST reply actions
It's February
People are over-reacting to these bumps on the road.
Barring a major injury, I fully expect to see Banner 18 this year.
It's a well-written article...
… but if Danny thinks he has an equal chance of winning a championship in 4 years as he does now, he’s lost his marbles. Not only will our three best players decline incrementally over time (and let’s hope that that decline truly is incremental), but many of our competitors will continue to improve. Cleveland isn’t going anywhere. LA looks like it’s got a strong core, as does Orlando. These teams will in all likelihood be staying even or improving while we’re going backward.
I think the team should have maximized its chances over the next two seasons. They should have either retained Posey, or upgraded the team at other positions. Boston isn’t the only team on a budget. San Antonio managed to improve its team, as did Cleveland and Orlando. The Celtics chose to downgrade, despite having $2.3 million of the MLE left and $1.8 million of the bi-annual exception left. I don’t think that that was a wise decision.
All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino
There is a great deal of presumption...
…in your statement Roy…and it favors the view that Boston is “likely” to decline substantially while the others improve….
Forget the Kobe and LeBron impending free agency and assume they are sticking around – both teams still have long term commitments to other players that will keep them off the FA market outside of MLE additions and other exceptions – so from a dollar vs dollar standpoint, both LA and Cleveland are going to be relying on reputation, not $$ to out-bid us for the same crop of talent – I like our chances in that battle.
As for trades – Boston has huge expiring deals coming up and that gives them perhaps the greatest ability of the main contenders to quickly revamp with an impact move – any of the GPA trio could be moved for a player or package of players that would reset the landscape – so Boston has flexibility on the market second to none due to their roster make up.
From a prospect standpoint – LAL has Jordan Farmar and Andrew Bynum as their headliner youth…Morrison and Ariza being somewhat intriguing on a 2nd tier level….Cleveland has JJ Hickson and possibly Anderson Varajao as players that project to improve from a raw skill standpoint…Boston has Rondo and Perkins as headliners, with Bill Walker as the main darkhorse prospect…Powe, Davis, Pruitt, Giddens all represent interesting “upside” variables who can easily be weighed, measured, and moved if necissary…so on a “young talent” prospective I like where Boston sits relative to the two main competitors.
San Antonio is in the most similar situation to Boston as their team age and roster make-up is most similar…it was SA that invented the “bigger picture” approach to free agency as they spent no real money upgrading their last title team and elected to do so this past off-season…still, the age and injury history of their big three and the lack of high level youth makes me confident that Boston is in a position to compete with them over the next 6 years…
The point of all of this is that during that 6 year window, it is easy to see scenarios where none of the current contenders outflank Boston’s current position as contender/defender of title….Orlando is solid, but they’ve committed big bucks to their core, so they aren’t going to be making major moves in the future – Courtney Lee is their best hope for internal improvement and Hedo’s upcoming FA is their chance to make a major move – once he’s locked in they’re in the same boat as the rest.
Lots of variables that far out, so no clear path – but the idea that the current contenders “only will get stronger” as Boston declines doesn’t do justice to the position Ainge has put this roster in…its not all about the rise of stars on one team and decline of stars on another – the full roster plays into this as well as the level of decline and the subsequent decisions made off of these organic developments.
I just don’t see some imminent drop out of the stratosphere with intelligent roster management…there are no teams on the horizon other than Portland that I see as having a relatively simple path to contention…much can change over the next 5 years, but if we’re talking about where each team is now, I like Boston’s chances to augment their aging stars with key additions that will keep them right in the mix…
by BillfromBoston on Feb 10, 2009 9:42 AM EST up reply actions
When you set forth the "youth" on Cleveland...
… I think you overlooked Lebron. Also, you somehow overlooked Ben Wallace, Big Z, and perhaps Varejao in terms of expiring contracts for next year (as well as Wally’s this year).
Cleveland is in by far the best position of any contender. They have the best young player on the planet, and they’ve got the expiring contracts and the payroll flexibility to add to their team in 2010, if that’s the direction they choose to go.
I think it’s silly for Boston to be planning on winning four years from now. The next 1 or 2 seasons are when they’ll be in prime contention, and they should maximize that.
All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino
Cleveland has 4 rotation players expiring...
…but i don’t clearly call that the BEST situation to of all the contenders…yes, LeBron is the best player and developing his game, but if they lose 3 of their rotation players they’ll be in the same boat as Boston – true LeBron would be retained while we’d be regulated to Rondo and Perk as our core young players to re-shuffle – but Boston has Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, and Kevin Garnett – so even in Big Z, Wallace, and Wally’s expiring windows, I don’t believe it will be easy for Cleveland to add even one player of the that caliber, even at their current levels…and if one or more of that GPA group isn’t up to snuff, the team still has flexibility to re-sign them at a huge savings, thus moving them down in the rotation – or can outright trade and replace…
I have a hard time believing a team that still features Paul Pierce and KG as starters and Ray Allen as a 6th man with a fully developed Perk and Rondo, a burgeoning Bill Walker and a couple of key veteran additions is going to be unable to contend…
Again, this is speculation and many variables removed from where we are, but I don’t think either you or I have a slam-dunk viewpoint on this…
by BillfromBoston on Feb 10, 2009 10:13 AM EST up reply actions
In four years...
Ray Allen will be on the verge of his 38th birthday, KG will be 37, and Paul with be 35 1/2. You have a hard time believing that that team won’t necessarily be a contender?
All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino
re: In four years...
I’m in complete agreement, Roy. The window was always 2 or 3 years. You are championship competitive (does anything else really matter?) when you have all-star caliber players playing at that level still. No chance that KG, Ray, and Pierce will be performing at that level in 4 years. Last I checked, they were human beings, and humans athletic performance drops off markedly when in their mid to latter 30s.
As far as the supporting crew goes for Boston, Cleveland, LA, etc., they merely need to be functional pieces that complement your stars. They come and go, just as our bench was revamped over and over in the 80s, and San Antonio’s has done likewise in the 2000s. The constant that keeps you competing for championships are stars performing at star level.
I think concerning yourself with extending your window to 5, 6 years and beyond is wishful thinking in the extreme. Many teams NEVER have a window, let alone a 2 or 3 years window. We should maximize the 2 or 3 years and hang what happens later, but absolutely maximize that short window. My own opinion is that at the end of KG and Pierce’s contracts, they’ll not be worth what they’ll be getting paid. So be it. It was the price of having a window at all. Well worth it.
My feeling is that Posey’s age window is comparable to that of GPA’s, and I’d have had no problem with him not really being deserving of his contract in the 4th year (as neither will GPA), as long as we went all in this year and next. And not to inflate Posey’s value (but neither to diminish it), he’s a guy whose value exceeded mere stat sheets. He IS an intangibles guy and contributes to winning. TA might put up better numbers than Posey, but does not contribute to winning as much (and Doc’s lack of trust in TA is an indication that he knows that too).
As to us having any significant advantage over other teams because of large expiring contracts, I doubt it. Boston is a cold weather place, and a lot of free agents naturally prefer better weather places. That’s one factor. You don’t normally get true star players just for expiring contracts. Teams that are willing to part with a real star, generally are doing so because they do not see themselves as a franchise ready to really compete for a championship with the guy. KG and Ray are examples. Older players on teams where the rest of the team is not talented enough and they’ve decided to cash in on young prospects and start over. The key there is that the trading team wants young prospects and draft picks. We gave up plenty to get KG and Ray. We no longer have that stable of young guys and quality picks to offer other teams.
Plus, an attraction for stars to come would be that we still have stars in their primes. This was true last year when KG and Ray came. This will be far less true in a year, when our guys inch closer to mid 30s and the perception will be that the window is fast closing.
Danny should have absolutely continued with the all-in approach to this year and next. I think he knows (as most of us do) that we’ll suck for a period while we restock, when GPA decline, no matter what he mouths about the future.
That's your opinion...
..and I disagree…unless you have a crystal ball that tells you the future, I believe there is plenty of flexibility for this team to play “wait and see” with their aging veterans while leaving open the possibility of making strategic additions to compensate for their decline/loss…
Nothing you can say to the contrary will be fact and probabilities this far out are mere speculation – far too many variables at play over the next few seasons…
What I rely on is the knowledge that the starting 5 is currently the best starting 5 in the league – IMO – and that modest additions to this team would make substantial differences in performance…I also know that financial flexibility is king in the NBA and the Celtics have that in spades during the years of most concern regarding replacing the production of each of the GPA trio…
I see a lot going for this team in the future based off certain beliefs I hold to be valid, coupled with certain truths of cap management and team building that can be seen all around the league…
Until we see it play out nobody truly knows…
by BillfromBoston on Feb 10, 2009 1:23 PM EST up reply actions
re: That's your opinion
—}I also know that financial flexibility is king in the NBA and the Celtics have that in spades during the years of most concern regarding replacing the production of each of the GPA trio…{—
Well, you have to manage your cap and contracts, to be sure, but TALENT is king in the NBA. Always has been. Having financial flexibility is certainly no guarantee. Ask the Bulls, post MJ about that, when they had flexibility in spades.
To be sure, we’re all just proffering opinions here, and time will tell. Of that we can agree.
Would you not also agree...
That there are differences in the lure of a franchise such as the Celtics who will have been a “contender” in some form for 3-5 years at the point they are looking to attract outside free agents vs. a team like Atlanta who had to chase Joe Johnson down with an amazing compensation package because the rep of the team was horrible? (sorry for the run-on sentence)
Boston may be cold, but they have those 17 banners and are a PR machine with players right now because of the presence of Doc and GPA…this organization is looked at right now as a model franchise – such as San Antonio – that doesn’t need warm weather as the principle reason to play here..
I think this team has built cache and it will prove useful when it comes time to spend — always a good marketing ploy to use flattery with egotistical players – -“we’re one player away from getting back over the hump, and that player is YOU.” …then you give ’em 80 million and go to town!
by BillfromBoston on Feb 10, 2009 1:53 PM EST up reply actions
re: Would you not also agree
—}That there are differences in the lure of a franchise such as the Celtics who will have been a "contender" in some form for 3-5 years {—
I remember well that the lure of those 16 banners that we had were of little benefit when it came to attracting players in say, 1990, when our original Big 3 were beyond their prime, and it was perceived that the window was shut. When our present big 3 have been contending for 4 or 5 years, I suspect that other players will regard coming to Boston rather like players did circa 1990, which is why I don’t mind doing something at the expense of the future for a better shot in the now (this year and next, as I assess our window). You and I simply disagree about the feasibility of extending the current window. I’d be happy as a clam if it happened, but regard it as unlikely in the extreme.
I don’t know that we’re looked at as the model franchise, though our model has certainly worked for a year, thus far. The ideal model is to get superstar players on the same team when they are young, and to compete for near a decade as San Antonio has, or as the Celtics of the 80s did. Such things require a bit of luck as well as a skillful front office. There are probably those out there that think we sold our souls for a year or 2 of championship caliber play, ala Miami of a couple of years ago. Well, we did, in a manner of speaking, and it worked, so it is a successful model. As said before, most teams NEVER have a window of any length. We got our star players at the tail end of their careers, and I don’t delude myself into thinking we’re going to have a run like Duncan’s Spurs did, or Bird’s Celtics did. We didn’t get our stars when they were early in their careers.
I understand your position. I just don’t think it’s realistic, but as you said, time will tell.
Don't remember all the business of the 90's...
But didn’t Paul Gaston jr have a lot to do with how this team approached the FA market?
I didn’t believe it was all about the age of the team, rather the team’s lack of persistence in acquiring major players to replace the big 3…
Reggie Lewis and Len Bias dying also clouded this…
by BillfromBoston on Feb 10, 2009 2:47 PM EST up reply actions
Stockton and Malone were effective until their late 30’s or early 40’s. It’s really Rondo’s team in two years anyway. If Danny cannot make a deadline deal or pick up a buyout option (ahem Marbury), then this year we need the House, Powe, BBD, and TA bench to be effective in the playoffs – otherwise No 18th title in Twenty-Oh-Nine.
In the future – You might see Rondo, Perkins, Garnett, Pierce, RA replacement, one of Powe or BBD, hopefully POB, TA replacement, Bill Walker. Or Danny pulls off a blockbuster to get Al Jefferson back for KG (Get better soon Al J).
I’d say our prime window is this year and next to win the NBA championship but Cleveland and LA will fight us tooth and nail. Don’t count out San Antonio, either.
After 2010, assuming the US economy has not destroyed the NBA and all the talent emigrates overseas, then it probably is Portland’s turn in the West and wherever Lebron shows up in the East to fight it out.
Boston Celtics - 2008 World Champions
Honestly Roy...
..is that the context of my statement or a corner-cutting response to what I wrote?
There are many, many factors at play, including: the production level of each of those players, the cost to retain them, the availability of outside options, the development of current and future players on the roster….
I simply said that this team had as much flexibility as any contending club and had a number of things going for it that would help to facilitate long-term contention as well as short…
Lets use a hypothetical for a moment – this isn’t THE plan as I see it, but simply a scenario - Perkins maintains his steady progress and levels off close to the player we saw before he missed time – even with the shoulder being an on-going concern, a suitable backup is found and off-sets these occasional absences and recover time.
Rondo reaches true All-Star status with a decent jump shot to go with his overall game…Bill Walker, in year 3, becomes a starting level wing player, capable of solid production nightly – that’s 3 positions of youth with one near lock for All Star at one of the two most pivitol positions on the team – the other two are productive relative to their position and all three are plus defenders/rebounders to go with their offensive contributions.
Now onto the GPA: KG continues to man the 4, aging gracefully in the mold of fit and talented big men of the past – not a “star” perse, but a starting caliber player…Paul Pierce is at a level comparable to Sprewell, AI, Drexler, etc – not what he was but a competent starter close to becoming a 6th or 7th man…Ray is the team’s 6th man and they have added a marcus Camby or Rasheed Wallace to bolster the experience on the bench…the team has spent for a quality backup PG – perhaps Gabe Pruitt develops into this, perhaps outside help is sought.
We have all seen the Blazer teams of the 90’s and recent Piston teams compete at a championship-worthy level based off the parts being greater than the sum of the whole…this doesn’t factor in the possability of a major star acquisition either – which will be possible sometime in the next 4 years…
I do believe there is enough precedent to believe that players of the caliber and current ability of Ray, Paul, and KG will be able to at the very least, be the NBA’s greatest backup trio – and i honestly feel that situationally any could start for a team that has a couple of anchor players to rely on for the night-in, night-out high-level production – we have one already in Rondo and I strongly believe we may have another in Walker – though that is much further from being a probability…
Even if there WAS only a 3 year window, if year 1 is “title”, year two is “runner up” or “3rd place” by a very close margin, then the team goes all out in FA and brings in the Big man and PG everyone thinks we need to win – how is having 2 out of 3 years as the favorites in that window a bad move if the available talent this past off-season was not on par with the available talent this coming off-season?
If that’s the window and the team can’t pay in both years for the same need position players, (because they’d still be there in year 3,) I believe waiting until year 3 for the better acquisition is the smarter play…
by BillfromBoston on Feb 10, 2009 1:42 PM EST up reply actions
well we sure as heck didn't maximiize the window.
And I guess the reason some think we did just fine is because we are the champs, we haven’t lost yet, our record is as good as last years, and they think the window is more than 2 more years. I think those reasons are flawed. The window was never more than 3 total years in my opinion, we are clearly struggling against our main competitors, and we are behind in the race for home court this year.
We didn’t maximiize the 3 year window at all. Still, if I woke up tomorrow and PJ Brown was back on the team, Id think we’d have a very good shot at winning it all again. Posey-Lite(scal) and improvement from the rest, has about bridged the gap to last years team. But we need a longer big. We are not going to win the title because we never got a long enough back up center? We decided to not return Mutumbo’s call?Geez.
So, if the team goes out and signs...
…Rasheed Wallace or Marcus Camby next year, along with adding a true veteran PG with experience instead of signing Joe Smith and Tyrone Lue to fill those jobs this season – did the team not still maximize its 3 year window?
Assuming you believe the team will pursue major options and that you believe those options to be substantial upgrades to the previous declined options – is this not giving the team the better chance to win in the 3 year window?
The only way I see it as “not” is if you believe Joe Smith and Lue, or Posey and X player would have been enough this year AND next…AND that this current team has very little chance at winning the title…
I don’t hold to that belief…
by BillfromBoston on Feb 10, 2009 1:47 PM EST up reply actions
are you thinking that Camby and Wallace...
are going to sign MLE deals? how exactly are we going to be in the market for those players?
Camby is not...
up next year…how would we sign him?
I wish someone would lay exactly what is VERY possible for this next off season that would explain why it is okay to go into this season with holes on the bench…
Bill, so far we took last years team, and took two of the 8 top rotation players away
and we didn’t replace them.
before you respond or react, think about what all of us are saying because its as simple as that: we took away key players, we didn’t replace them and we feel we had 3 years to win all we could. In year two, SO FAR, we haven’t maximized the opp. Its that simple.
It doesn’t mean that by tonight things won’t look better. Or by 3/1/09.
Do I think its forgiveable if we lose this year and danny does something next year and we win that title and reman competitive after that? I am sorry I have reality to deal with and that reality is that Danny has made this years team worse. So far.
Also, your last paragraph...
…states exactly what the article is suppose to point out – that accurate or not – its a strategy to punt on last season’s free agents at their going rates not just becuase of their perceived value, but because of the oportunity cost of committing roles and roster spots to them when a season later substantially better options will be available.
Now, if the team was 100 percent costing themselves a title this year strictly to look at next i’d be opposed, I just don’t believe that to be the case, nor do I believe that James Posey, Brent Barry, or Matt Barnes would have been the difference maker in this battle – same goes for Joe Smith, Rasho Nesterovic, Tyrone Lue or any other mediocre vet…
this is just opinion obviously, but i don’t think the season to date has “proven” anything other than that the gap between teams has narrowed…if Boston can take a one year “narrowing” for a 3 year “widening” that seems like sound business…
by BillfromBoston on Feb 10, 2009 9:55 AM EST up reply actions
"its a strategy to punt on last season’s free agents"
Sure, and if you want to get rich, you can buy a lottery ticket and call it a strategy. Good luck with that…
by Casperian on Feb 10, 2009 12:20 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I found this entertaining, Casperian
Thanks for that.
-sw
Manuel Aristides Ramirez is the greatest hitter I've ever seen.
by Steve Weinman on Feb 10, 2009 12:55 PM EST up reply actions
Seriously?
It was funny, but hardly representative of the odds and analysis that go into team building…one liners aren’t very contributory to the discussion – though amusing as they may be — this team certainly has better than lotto ticket luck coming their way…
by BillfromBoston on Feb 10, 2009 1:54 PM EST up reply actions
You can easily replace “buy a lottery ticket” with “put all your money on red at the roulette table” and it wouldn´t harm the metaphor. Now, 50/50 are certainly better odds than the chances of any team winning the Championship in the NBA (including the Celtics), but I still wouldn´t want the GM of my franchise to gamble on it.
I ´ve wrote a slightly more detailed version a bit further down the comment list, but I simply can´t believe in a 5 year window for this team, and I have to wonder how anyone can. A 5 year window is a best case scenario, and there are far too many variables to simply assume we could contend for 5 years. Neither you, me or AInge is a fortune teller, and I´d rather see him focus on the task at hand (read: this season)
Great write up
Great article, Eric. I like Ainge’s idea of building for 4-6 season but without losing a focus on the current season. I am imagining that neither Ainge nor the managing partners want to find themselves in a situation even remotely similar to that of 2007 and the lottery. Ainge’s decision to trade away and find a way to bring the guns of Ray Allen and KG was brilliant. Trading for the draft pick for Rondo years ago was brilliant. Those 2 moves alone make me trust Ainge… but it doesn’t mean I won’t question some of his ideas.
You know, the Cassell thing could be the answer… albeit not a great answer, but at least an answer. Here is a question for folks: assuming that we don’t make any trades and can’t sign anyone from their buyouts, what would your playoff roster look like??
1. Rondo
2. Ray
3. Pierce
4. KG
5. Perk
—
7. Powe
8. Big Baby
9. House
10. Scal
11. ________
12. ________
Thoughts??
Obvious options: Pruitt, POB, Tony Allen; Less obvious but still options: Cassell, Bill Walker.
(it’s only 12 for active players in the playoffs, right??)
My rambles: http://nbawithoutcable.wordpress.com
Nice Assessment
Danny Ainge has to look at now and the future when making his decisions. The only thing he could have done this summer was to resign Posey. He made a calculated decision not to. If Posey signed would things be any different at this point in this year? I don’t think any of the possible signings this summer would have be feasible for whatever reasons. The problem seems to be one more of fatique, due to the front-loaded schedule, and to lack of practice time, due to the same. Posey would be just as tired as the other players so I don’t think we’d be in a different situaltion. In addition, if we signed Pose we wouldn’t have been able to sign Tony Allen and Eddie House. Both have made on and off contributions, but I don’t see anything different from Pose if he were here. We are also now talking in the face of two tough losses, both winnable games if the ball bounced a different way. The Celtics are still contenders for a championship regardless of what has happened so far this year. We have no reason to think differently. If a move can be made that can significantly improve the team we have I’m sure Danny will do it. If such a move isn’t available we’ll go into the playoffs with the roster we have now. We are not playing our best and we can play better. Our main contenders are playing at their highest level, in my opinion. The playoffs are different than the regular season. It would be great if we could get overall home court advantage and it is still possible that we can. If not, this team has faced adversity before and overcome it. I don’t think that is the same for our competition (except maybe SA). So, as I ramble on, let’s not get discouraged with what we have.
"I don't come to play, I come to WIN"--Larry Bird
Posey decision was right
Its not like Danny passed on Posey. He just wouldn’t go 4 years which seems right to me. We top loaded our money and that certainly paid off last year and will this year and probably next year. After that….you’ve gotta be kidding me….there’s a lot of ACL injuries, bad team chemistrys etc that can happen to our contenders and you simply can’t get agida over situations beyond the ‘09/’10 season.
Step back and remember….we’ve lost a few close ones and LA does look better than us…but the product has been great. We are never out of games.
Scal’s injury is not really good. He was a factor providing Posey-like defensive energy and concussions are far more worrisome (about time) than they used to be. The window seems to be closing on Pruitt, although Eddie’s hot streak may have to do with that. Big Baby’s shot is still more off than on and the book must be out on Leon’s game. Is the combo of those two better than a year ago? I’m not sure now.
But the Big Three is not going to go quietly and Rondo and Perk are definitley better than a year ago. Last but not least, our schedule goes easy into the playoffs.
i agree with roy hobbs about the potential of cleveland. they will be our nemesis as long as they retain lebron and they will build around him- not a bad problem to have. i trust danny to think long term. ray looks the most vulnerable long term but if he can accept a downsized contract and lesser responsibilities, he could be a valuable 6th man someday. we need a big because of perk’s shouler woes which i think won’t go away. somehow, i don’t think sam will be the solution this year, but you never know and sam is a gamer and has that winning ego. i just worry about his defense.
Congratulations contributors!
Just thought I would note for the record that this is one of the most erudite articles and commentary I’ve seen on CelticsBlog in my years as a participant and lurker. I’ve learned a good bit and found many posters to be persuasive. And no vitriol!
Awesome people! Makes me even prouder to be a Celts fan!
by Thruthelookingglass on Feb 10, 2009 11:00 AM EST reply actions
This must be a record...
…for the posters commenting on this thread not attacking each other…there are a good many of us who are knowledgeable and often extend that educated-theorizing to the level of absolute truth…I’m as guilty as anyone when it comes to letting passion get in the way…
Glad to have a real discussion where the bounds of fact and opinion are only marginally over-stepped and then quickly acknowledged and returned to center…
by BillfromBoston on Feb 10, 2009 1:59 PM EST up reply actions
Really great piece
Gives a little perspective on the long term. I’ve thought for awhile that it makes sense to keep Ray and Paul (if they want to stay) as rotation guys who can give you 15-20 minutes per game late into their 30s for less than premium money. On top of that, I really hope PP stays until he retires just for the storyline aspect. Totally agree on your KG point, too. He won’t see too much decline at least for the next 5 years.
My question is, what kind of player do you go for, assuming Rondo develops, in two or three years? Or do you just let the chips fall where they may?
That being said, It really does feel like we’re missing something right now though – that something being a 5 who can plug up the hole when Perk isn’t in the middle.
Team definately needs and 5 and a 1...
…and I think its safe to say that those needs are purely of the back-up variety for the next 8-10 years…
The real issue will be the 4/3/2 – no surprise there…but if Chris Paul has shown us anything, its that a dominant PG can really elevate his team’s play without needing GPA level talent to compete on the highest level.
I think KG can play his game as a 15-18 pt, 8-10 rebound guy for basically as long as health permits – his game is jump shooting and length, coupled with intelligence…as he becomes more of a jump shooter he will increase his rebounding and assists I believe – much like Barkley did at the end of his career….
But assuming KG is a starter , but not star in the future, the team will need a big-time SF or SG to go along with Rondo’s dominant game…Bill Walker is a very nice prospect to have a look at over the next couple of years – he should show what he’s about before GPA loses its effectiveness as the central players.
The other good thing is that wings are the easiest position to acquire impact players at – the difference between the Kobe, Pierce, and LeBron’s of the world and the RJ, Lewis, Redd players isn’t substantial as long as the roster has compensation for the difference – which Rondo would be in this instance..
Boston has a high probability of replacing Pierce and/or Allen with 17+ ppg type players over the next 3 years IMO, because of their availability in the draft and on the FA market…If Boston can get some solid wings, retain one/both of Pierce and Ray, they will have a long stretch of time to search for KG’s replacement – which will be the greatest challenge…Star PF’s are very hard to find…
by BillfromBoston on Feb 10, 2009 2:11 PM EST up reply actions
I think the big thing
is in the playoffs we’ll see all five starters minutes go up. Then all of the sudden instead of GPA playing 35 and Rondo/Perk 30 – we’ll see GPA playing 40+ a game and Rondo / Perk at 35. A lot of the bench weakness comes from playing them all together. If we just played Powe at PF and KG at C or BBD at C – you probably wouldn’t notice that Perk was out. Same when TA is in for Ray or Pierce. Scal for KG or Pierce. And House for Rondo or Ray. Depending on matchups we can play our bench successfully, just not our whole bench. Even if doc uses the same rotation – just expanding the minutes will greatly reduce the 4 bench players at once minutes.
Looking at how the big3 are playing – I’d say they are all capable of playing at the same level as last year, and in fact Ray Allen is probably going to play at a higher level. Rondo is much better this year, Perk has improved. If we can get a few “fluke” games from guys like House, Tony Allen, Powe, and BBD – we’ll be fine.
this makes me feel better
given what I wrote above. You’re totally right… It’s not like BBD is going to be logging 35 minutes a game in the playoffs, unless he catches fire… in which case he’ll be on the floor with 3 or 4 other starters for most of that stretch…
Plus
If not signing Posey, let’s us sign Rasheed in the offseason – who cares :)
Joe Smith
Are we holding our breath on Joe, or is that rumor mill closed?
My rambles: http://nbawithoutcable.wordpress.com
similar to the deal with Starbury
chances of a trade are slim so we are hoping they cut him, which won’t happen till after the deadline
"Would I rather be feared or loved? Easy. Both. I want people to be afraid of how much they love me." Michael Scott
I know the trade won't happen
But the buyout is still a possibility.
From an earlier comment:
There is a theory about overpaying against competitors known as "the winner’s curse." If two oil companies are trying to outbid each other for the rights to drill on a piece of land that they know will prove lucrative, the winning company will most likely pay TOO MUCH for what they are really getting out of it. Where else does this apply? Sports.
In Boston, names like Renteria, Drew, Clement, Lugo (just to name a few), ring a certain bell: WE PAID TOO MUCH for marginalized talent because we thought we needed them more, and so we front the money so that our competitors wouldn’t get them.
The result? The winner’s curse: you overpay when you dive into the market (free agency market). That is the easy way out that rarely pays off in the end (look at the Yankees for the last 7 years). What matters more is making good decisions that will sustain a level of success over long periods of time, but playing for RIGHT NOW. Last year was the best example of that model— everything from trading away draft picks to get the other pieces of the puzzle, signing Cassell and PJ Brown, etc.
I don’t know where they go from here. I still think guys like Big Baby and TA are dispensable… the problem is they don’t really give much trade value on the market. You’d have to tag on draft picks, which can obviously be a deal breaker.
People want Ainge to make moves, but look at that bench: how much value do those guys really have that can get us what we need (length, reliable ball-handler, go-to scorer)????
My rambles: http://nbawithoutcable.wordpress.com
There is a high liklihood...
…that all players on poor teams that have either expire or have one year left at short money, will be bought out…this includes Marcus Camby – who if not traded is likely to be set free to go be a part of the playoffs for someone else – Clippers are unlikely to retain him next year…
by BillfromBoston on Feb 10, 2009 2:14 PM EST up reply actions
I've had my eye on him
You really think Camby would get bought out?!! That would pretty much seal the deal if he came over here in March/playoffs…
People Forget
People forget that when the Garnett trade was made, the conventional wisdom was that the the Celtics would not win right away. It would take at least a year for the three stars to acclimate to one another. Another erroneous piece of conventional wisdom is that Rondo and Perkins weren’t good enough as the 4th and 5th starters to win a title.
So I have the same skepticism about the conventional wisdom this year, namely that the bench isn’t good enough and that the Celtics have to “do something” before the deadline.
Success in the playoffs will depend on how well the starters play and how Rivers reacts in end of game situations.
and the rotation combinations...
…don’t forget..until I hear something from Doc explaining why he uses the variations he has, I don’t know what to think…this team SHOULD space out the minutes between starters and bench to mix them more evenly, but there is a reason they aren’t during the regular season, i just don’t know why…
My guess is to keep starter minutes down for the playoffs, but that’s just a guess…
by BillfromBoston on Feb 10, 2009 2:16 PM EST up reply actions
It's kind of obvious
In the last two games, we needed a lock down defender who could spread the opposition’s defense in the final two minutes. Hmmmmm, who would that remind you of? Posey. Ownership made a pass on him and we will pay with no banner. I never got it. So what if they overpaid for one year. We had a three year window when Garnett and Allen came to town to win. Amazingly, we found the team and chemistry in the first year and then THE MEN WITH THE LONG TERM PLAN let Posey go. We have to have the mentality of “win now” because our big three are already older. This never made any sense to me.
by The Real Large James 2 on Feb 10, 2009 11:44 AM EST reply actions
Umm...
I don’t think you’ll have much luck with finding MORE OF A LOCKDOWN defender than Kevin Garnett. In the Lakers game, Paul Pierce was ALL OVER Kobe. Who was Posey going to guard? And who was he going into the game for in the final minutes??
As good as Posey was, let’s not get carried away. Paul Pierce has turned himself into a very good defenseman. If I had to choose in the final minutes who was going to guard a team’s opposing SG or SF, you bet I would choose Pierce. His drive to win just isn’t offensive-minded— he knows he needs to play smothering defense to help the Celts win. If the game is tight down the line, you stick KG on the 4 or 5 to shut him down. Rondo is one of the best PG defenders in the league (look at his def. efficiency % and his steals per game).
Again, let’s not get carried away. One question: who was guarding Lebron in the final quarter of the epic 7th game in the Eastern Conference Semis? Paul Pierce.
By the way, if they signed Posey, then they wouldn’t have been able to sign TA and House. I don’t know what is the better decision, but at the time (off season), I would have done the same as Ainge. Save the money, and know that Posey is old and only has 2 solid seasons left in him.
My rambles: http://nbawithoutcable.wordpress.com
Nothing more refreshing than the green Kool-Aid...
I want to adress the 6 factors from the article first.
1. “Highly productive” is a pretty vague term. I would say that the difference between #18 and no championship is “highly productive”. Would Posey guarantee us a title? Certainly not. Do we still have a chance to win it all? Absolutely. The thing is, we have evidence that we´re a championship team with Posey, while we won´t know if this team can win it without him. Time will define this “highly productive”.
2. Titles are not won by the core alone, and also not by your #1 option. It´s still a team effort. While I agree with the notion that Ray Allen is more valuable to this team than any role player, no team can win a championship without good (read: productive) role players.
3.-6. I am shocked if he really thinks this team as it is has a “5-6 year” window!
I can see Garnett staying productive into his late 30ies, but what about the others? Is Perk`s shoulder an issue? What if Rondo never develops his jump shot? Will we get a good replacement for Ray and Pierce once they lose it? Will Garnett suffer a serious injury (heaven forbid)? Far too many “if´s” to make such a bold statement, imo. I can´t believe that a basketball GM would really think that way, so I will assume it´s not his true opinion. That´s not solid work, that´s gambling, imo.
Add the fact that there are other teams that might improve next off-season. I`d rather see them go “all in” now.
It´s tempting to think about Grant Hill or Rasheed Wallace, but I still remember the Malone/Payton Lakers. Who knows if these guys will be productive next season? Who knows if they´ll even sign with Boston, considering the Celtics´ FA history (bad weather, high taxes)? Maggette and McDyess are not walking through that door, either. Another gamble I don´t want to see from the man at the top.
by Casperian on Feb 10, 2009 12:02 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
A fair analysis...
…but you appear to be making one large and flawed assumption in your response to 3-6…you are operating on the premise that the unknown variables you mention above are A. Likely to happen and B. would force the team to accept them and be doomed as a consequence.
The team has flexibility and an ability to go year-by-year over the next 3-5 seasons with many of these situations – sure, if we re-up Ray Allen after this year and pay him to be a starter for the next 2 years and then he falls off the face of the earth, we’re screwed…but Boston is going to look at his substantial INCREASE in production this year, see if it carries over to next year, and then make an educated decision on where they think he projects as a player over the length of the deal they offer….same goes for all the other scenarios…
So its not “gambling” to look at the team Ainge has as a collection of assets to be put in play strategically and believe he has enough assets to contend beyond this year and next…doesn’t mean contention includes all of these assets still being here – but they have value and can be parlayed into other things – something Ainge has shown a great aptitude for…
by BillfromBoston on Feb 10, 2009 2:23 PM EST up reply actions
If you don’t go forwards, you go backwards...
It might sound pessimistic, but I wonder how you can say my asumption that these variables are likely to happen is flawed. It is just as flawed as to assume that they´re unlikely to happen. As I said in another comment, neither you, me nor AInge is a fortune teller. Other teams improved, while we lost our sixth man. Considering last year`s playoffs struggles with seven games against the Hawks and Cavaliers, it`s not absurd to assume that we have problems to solve this season.
Fact is, that A) older players are more likely to get injured, B) older players tend to lose their skills more quckly the older they get, and C) a lot of promising young players in this league never really make it (lack of development or injury). To simply assume that everything works out for the C´s is a bit naive, imo, and shouldn´t be part of the long-term plan of a multi-million dollar company, and certainly not the base of it.
You said they´re flexible and able to react to these “situations”. Wyc basically admitted that we have “a situation”, and said on the Celtics-Nets broadcast that they want to make a move for at least 2 players before the deadline. Well, nothing happened, and the general consensus is that it´s because noone wants what we have to offer. To me, that´s the opposite of flexible.
It seems clear...
That this year’s primary strategic option was going to be waiver wire addition and internal development – we’ve seen internal development, it remains to be seen if the team is “worse” than last year…other teams improved, doesn’t mean this team regressed – what the mathmatical formula that factors the improvement of the starting lineup minus the regression of the bench?
What is the discrepency in the bench? I think Boston needed a better F/C than PJ Brown, but I was good with stop-gap solutions until a multi-year one was found…
I’m not saying the team isn’t worse than last year, but if it is its by degrees — I don’t think the losses to elite teams this season necissarily equates to Boston simply being worse – SA, LAL, and CLE made substantial additions to improve, its quite possible that a Celtics team with PJ Brown and James Posey, (minus Eddie/TA) would be exactly the same…I don’t think those two make anywhere close to the impact that Mo Williams, Andrew Bynum, and Mason/Hill make for the other teams…
I do maintain that this team does have tremendous flexibility season-to-season and their in-season flexibility will increase as their assets accrue value, which most seem to be on track for, regardless of their current value around the league – which is certainly high enough to add marginal vets with low contracts…i’m sure Ainge has trades on the table, they just aren’t very attractive…
The “nobody wants what we’ve got” mantra is something that fans have taken up and ran with, despite no concrete evidence to prove this – some SI article where a random GM states this? What’s the context of that statement? Who is the source? GM’s don’t often know what’s going on outside their own organizations – which is why hoopshype is still one of their prime sources of league-wide news!
Ainge has “options” he is just in an options cycle that has marginal value to him – which is the tier of options he went into the season believing the team needed to be in order to compete for a title – the waiver wire and internal development…
That’s my opinion, but I don’t share the belief that this team is “screwed” or that they are out of contention without making sexy moves..
by BillfromBoston on Feb 10, 2009 7:26 PM EST up reply actions
I will say this
I’d rather have Posey past his prime (but also this year) than Sheed and Hill for their end-of-career contracts (which might last as long as what Posey would have been signed for)
if we can get younger, quality vets this offseason and still have a chance to win it this season, I’m ok with what Danny’s doing
"Would I rather be feared or loved? Easy. Both. I want people to be afraid of how much they love me." Michael Scott
Sheed and Hill...
…are still substantially better than Posey now and I don’t see a time when that order will change as James is slightly younger, but far less productive…I’ll take Sheed next year and be good with it….then we need a PG as insurance in case Gabe is the dud i always took him for…
by BillfromBoston on Feb 10, 2009 2:28 PM EST up reply actions
bird in the hand
my point is having Posey now is better than having Sheed next year
but that’s just another way of wording the same argument that’s been going on all day
thanks for writing this thoughtful piece
"Would I rather be feared or loved? Easy. Both. I want people to be afraid of how much they love me." Michael Scott
Any Chance
Is there any chance would could trade for Marcus Camby?
This is what I've been asking for weeks!
I know he’s an 8 Million dollar man this year and next but if we could somehow make this happen, it would put us over the top. This is exactly who we need. Length! We would have to lose Scal, but who cares. I think it’s highly unlikely but out of anybody, I think we need a Camby.
Let T.O. Go!
by Captain Comeback on Feb 10, 2009 1:23 PM EST up reply actions
here's the short answer
no.
the slightly longer answer is this: not unless we are looking to completely empty the bench
if I assume the starting 5 is untouchable and assuming Eddie House isn’t included, you are looking at a nice little 1 for 6 player trade – I just don’t see it happening
"Would I rather be feared or loved? Easy. Both. I want people to be afraid of how much they love me." Michael Scott
Well said, Bill
You nailed it on so many fronts, Bill, well done. Let me just a few small points to add to what you already wrote:
1. The Big 3 are abnormally situated to extend their careers beyond the norm. Certain players, based on the game they play or their physical makeup, really start to show their age at around 32 or so. Fortunately for us, I don’t think you can say that about the big 3. As Bill noted, KG’s game is based on speed and quickness (and being 7 foot) and he should still hold speed and quickness advantages against most power forwards even as he enters ages 36-37, not to mention the mental part of the game, his outrageous intensity, work ethic and his ability to hold the rest of the team accountable, all things that will continue to age well. KG has the PF position locked up for the next 4 years. PP, unlike most of his contemporary wingman, plays a game that’s never been predicated on athleticism. To me, he’s a small version of Tim Duncan. He’s the Small Fundamental. His game relies on footwork, playing the angles, and strength, combined with a sneaky fast first step. All those abilities should continue to age well. Even by age 36 or so, I believe Paul will still be an effective scorer, probably venturing more and more into the post as he ages. Ray, the oldest of the Big 3, is probably the first to decline as Bill noted and I think a move to 6th man would be wise. His game is predicated, as Donny notes so often, as playing at his own speed. He doesn’t rush, overextend himself, or otherwise waste motion. He keeps his body lean and takes magnificent care of his body and I really don’t see why he can’t play as long as Reggie Miller did, and keep a good part of his effectiveness right up to age 40. So, unlike other superstars, such as Shaq or McGrady or Nash or Kidd, I think our superstars are uniquely positioned to maintain their talents beyond what is normally considered to be one’s prime. Ainge knows this and that’s why his plan is 5-6 years, not the 2-3 years commonly argued on the Internet.
But it cannot be stated loud enough: any catastrophic injury to any of the Big 3 would throw these calculations out the window. That’s one of the biggest potential disasters in forecasting a 5-6 year window—the health of the big 3.
2. Last year’s free agent market was a seller’s market and this offseason will be a buyer’s market. The free agent class of 09 is so much better than last year’s and Danny was smart to not over commit himself last summer during a seller’s market. And with the ever-evolving financial crisis, I think we’re going to see high supply (in terms of quality free agents) combined with low demand (lots of frugal owners) this coming summer, making it a great time to add some free agents like Rasheed Wallace or Iverson. Hell, if Posey were a free agent this summer, he’d be lucky to get HALF of what he got last summer. That’s how constricted the market is going to be. Again, Danny knew this last season, and that’s why he held the line with Posey.
3. Don’t underestimate the progress Rondo and Perk are going to make. PG and Center are continually the hardest positions to stock and we have two young, championship caliber players at those spots. Rondo is a certain lock for the All-Star game next season, and projects to be one of the best point guards in the game in the next 5 seasons. As the Big 3 age gracefully, their effectiveness will be augmented by Rondo’s continued emergence. Great point guards make others better and having a player of Rondo’s caliber and age is a huge boon and another reason this window is at 5-6 years. Perk, while not in Rondo’s league talent-wise, still continues to get better bit by bit every season and projects (as long as he remains relatively healthy) to be near All-Star level in 2-3 seasons from now. Having that type of talent, at his age and position, is another huge boon for our chances of prolonging this run.
As always, maintaining our run of good health remains a must in any of these projections. But other than that type of unforeseeable event, I believe we are uniquely positioned for a dynastic run in the next 5-6 years and luckily for us we have a GM who knows the value of forward thinking.
by SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on Feb 10, 2009 2:55 PM EST reply actions
Another Angle
I think Danny Ainge had every intention of spending the midlevel on someone, likley James Posey this year. He gambled and lost IMO, suddenly there wasnt a player he wanted left to sign. He always intended to resign House I think and that is why he was holding out with Posey. We ended up with Tony Allen, POB and Bill Walker as consolation prizes.
The argument for a 3 year window is valid, with the roster as presently constituted. The argument for a 5-6 year window is only valid if we are able to carefully add a couple of talented bench players at key positions. (I think the positions are at 4/5 and the wing instead of at PG) This would obviously shorten minutes on GPA, lessen worload and make them more productive come playoff time. Easier said than done.
The more time that passes, the more convinced I am that Kobe will never leave LA. He doesnt walk into a situation with a better supporting cast and the Lakers dont trade him unless it is for the farm which leaves very little supporting cast.
As for Lebron, he will be starting over if he leaves the Cavaliers. His new team will have to build a supporting cast and find a coach, develop chemistry quickly or they will have a megamillion dollar player on a mediocre team. He is taking a chance that may come back to bite him. Does he have the ability to live with boo’s for a few years?
"First fix their hearts"-Eizo Shimabuku
My newest make me feel good conspiracy theory: Cle can't win because LeBron would stay there and not go to NY
so there is no way Stern lets cle beat us
oh wait he could let Cle beat us but make sure la beats cle in the finals
crap
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
NBA Playoffs Content Module
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- The Philadelphia 76ers? Gone till November
- ‘Deep Thoughts’ and Cheap Thoughts: Miami Heat vs. Boston Celtics
- Metta World Peace wishes everyone a happy Labor Day on Memorial Day
- Chris Bosh addresses his postgame crying, and being labeled ‘soft’
- Ricky Rubio watches the NBA playoffs while spinning around an airport’s baggage carousel (PHOTO)
