Chris Forsberg's Options for the Celtics

Here's the plan: Run it back


May, 29, 2013
6:00PM ET
By Chris Forsberg | ESPNBoston.com

Like every good team, the Boston Celtics will enter the offseason with multiple plans of attack based on how the summer unfolds. Unlike past years, however, deciding which initial outline is Plan A isn't quite as easy to determine. The Celtics have plenty of options -- and that's not necessarily a good thing -- as each sketch has its pitfalls and promise.

While there was much more roster uncertainty last summer, at least in terms of the amount of unrestricted free agents, Celtics president of basketball operations Danny Ainge was adamant that re-signing Kevin Garnett was Plan A, and the team was able to hit the ground running when Garnett inked a three-year extension before the start of free agency.

This year? You can believe Ainge when he says he's not really sure which direction the team is headed. An early playoff exit makes it an extra long crawl to the NBA draft later this month, which serves as the sort of unofficial start of roster construction for the 2013-14 season.

Over the next month, we'll hear an endless amount of speculation about which direction the Celtics might be leaning -- like the out-of-town report this week that suggested the Celtics were ready to buy out Paul Pierce -- but the truth of the matter is that it's a fluid situation and all Ainge can do at this point is gather information about potential moves and be ready to activate his plan of choice when the moment arrives.

There seems to be four main scenarios in play this offseason:

* Keep the band together: Minimal changes, bank on health
* Goodbye, captain: Roster tweaked with Pierce departure
* Out with the old: Moving on without both KG and Pierce
* Complete teardown: Extreme makeover: Celtics edition

Over the next four days, we'll take a closer look at each possible option, gauge the potential for it to occur, determine some moves that might go along with it, and debate whether it's the best course of attack. First up: We're putting the band back together.

What it entails: The Celtics enter the offseason with 14 of the 15 players from the end of the season under contract for the 2013-14 campaign. This doesn't necessarily suggest bringing back the whole crew, but it would mean keeping the veteran core of Pierce and Garnett in place, while making other moves to the back end of the roster.

Degree of difficulty: Low. Honestly, this is the path of least resistance. Garnett sounded like a player with one more season in him after Boston's early playoff exit and, despite all the speculation about his future, the Celtics could very easily elect to bring Pierce back on the final year of his deal (even if they'll cringe a bit at the price tag).

Why it makes sense: If healthy, the return of Rajon Rondo and Jared Sullinger gives Boston a young core that can defray some of the load on Garnett and Pierce, giving the Celtics enough to at least be competitive in a top-heavy Eastern Conference. Boston would cross its fingers that Jeff Green will continue to blossom and that Avery Bradley will improve further after double shoulder surgery last summer. With a little bit more consistency from the bench and the right offseason additions, this is still a dangerous team. And let's not forget, Garnett was a rebounding machine in the playoffs and Pierce had an excellent regular season, carrying the team at times when others were injured.

Why it doesn't make sense: There's a whole lot of "ifs" in this scenario, the least of which assumes improved health -- not just that of rehabbing Rondo and Sullinger, but for a Boston team that's seen its title aspirations routinely detoured by injuries in recent seasons. The biggest obstacle might simply be mental, as putting back together a team that got bounced from the opening round of the postseason is a bit hard to swallow. The Celtics don't want to endure another .500 campaign and an early-May exit -- that's the fast track to NBA purgatory, where a team can't restock via the draft and doesn't compete for a title, getting stuck in a cycle of mediocrity.

Let's make some deals: If the Celtics elect to stomach the $15.3 million due to Pierce in the final year of his contract, then something has to give in the middle of Boston's salary structure. And the three guys in the headlights would likely be Brandon Bass ($6.5 million), Courtney Lee ($5.2 million) and Jason Terry ($5.2 million). Bass was phenomenal late in the year and into the postseason, but a healthy Sullinger potentially moves him to a reserve role and makes his salary a little tougher to stomach. Lee and Terry were two of Boston's biggest underachievers this season, which means their trade values are about as low as they can be, but the Celtics could explore potential deals. There were rumblings during the year that Memphis was interested in Lee and the Grizzlies have trade exceptions that could help facilitate that sort of deal (interest might hinge on whether Tony Allen moves on). Finding a home for 35-year-old Terry is a little bit more difficult at his age and price tag. The Celtics could get some help with the No. 16 pick in the draft and can add a serviceable body with an available exception (mini midlevel or biannual). Adding an experienced ball-handler and/or some additional center depth with veteran minimum deals wouldn't hurt the cause, but are those sorts of players taking discounts to win in Boston at this point?

Final thoughts: Boston's early playoff exit seems to have encouraged many to assume that a larger overhaul was necessary. As the sting of an early summer vacation starts to wear off, you can't help but wonder if the Celtics will give increased thought to keeping this group together, particularly since Pierce's expiring deal (and the greater potential for Garnett to retire next summer) could more seamlessly usher in a makeover process (whether that's next summer, or as in-season trade options if the team fizzled during the regular season before that).


bob


.

Bob,
Thanks for the article.
Talking about option A (keep the band together). The first thing DA has to do is find a decent center who could hold the fort for 15-20 min. I don't think CW, White or Fab are it.
On the other end (PG), I hope T-Will can spell RR. He showed some promise. Maybe camp and pre-season will deepen that groove.
Just my $.02

Now let's see what Forsberg writes about the other 3 options...

AK

If we choose option A we have no money to spend on anyone meaningful! Expect more of the same as last year, and another wasted year as we all grow 1 year older.

112288

112288 wrote:If we choose option A we have no money to spend on anyone meaningful! Expect more of the same as last year, and another wasted year as we all grow 1 year older.

112288

A couple years ago DA found Steamer...
The can bring back Kristic. Perhaps trade available assets.

AK

Terry, Lee, and Bass are a little overpaid, IMO.

If they can get a deal on the table for Pierce, perhaps they can pickup another star. KG is still effective and he can probably play one more season if they keep him.

But Doc needs to play his bench consistently...

Gotta ask your self, are we going to war (Win #18) with the likes of Steammer or Kristic?

This team is done and we gotta move on. If they shed PP and BB, Lee, Terry and bring others in we would be in a far superior position one year from now.

112288

112288,
I'm not arguing which option is better and which DA and Co. should take.
All I said was in case the choose option A then.....
As it happens, I also think that it's time to get rid of PP. If not completely but at least put him on the bench. I'm not sure about KG - he may have some gas left in the tank.
In any case I'm against sweeping changes.

AK

Sinus 007

I know you are not arguing options, in general I am just tired of the whole situation with the Celtics and the older players and I want to move on. Other wise for every year we do not do a major house cleaning, it will take 2X - 3X years from that point to win #18. People can point to what happened in 2008 and say it can be done ASAP, but that was a fluke, a 1 in 100,000, or a perfect storm that happened...not the norm.

As I said to Rosalie in another post, PP was loyal to the Celtics and the Celtics were loyal to PP with max contracts that not only set him up financially for life, but also generations of Pierces to come.

Also remember there was no guarantee that PP would have won a championship elsewhere if the Celtics traded him years earlier........just ask Charles Barkley.........or Mosses Malone.

So if we let PP go this summer (please!) and he plays for another 2-3 years elsewhere........are we going to taint his image of being one of the all time great Celtics by playing a few years elsewhere........of course not!

As we hoist his number to the rafters one evening in a few years.............are we going to think about how he finished his career in another teams uniform........or the 40+ point game against Labron James & Cleveland on that Sunday afternoon in Boston Garden on our way to #17................the answer is obvious!!!!!!!!!.............and if we begin the rebuilding now...............after PP ceremony, everyone will sit back and watch another powerful & great Celtic team take the floor for another championship banner run!

112288

Can I remind people that Paul Pierce averaged 18ppg last season and saw in increase in his career averages in assists, steals, and rebounds.

The problem with Pierce is the size of his deal, not his talent or age.

If he were willing to restructure his deal - you would be crazy not to keep him - as there are very few SF in the NBA with those kind of numbers.

MRK

YES, if they can. But to have a bench player at $15M makes no sense either.

112288

112288,

If the starter makes 8.7mil and the bench player makes 15mil, does it really make any difference?

Having the starter make 15mil and having a player come off the bench at 8.7mil maybe sounds better, but having two quality guys at one position is a bonus.

How many teams have such quality at the SF position? Win-win (or win-Win) either way.

gyso

Gyso,

First off, we are not talking just a starter, we are talking about getting a major impact player to fill Pierces roll. An $8.7M player is not a Paul Pierce in his prime talent wise.

But more to the point, it does make a difference, here is why. Pierce is not playing 35+ minutes anymore with effectiveness for a full season. A bench player plays 20-25 minutes.

A high quality starter is expected to log 38-42 minutes day in and day out.

So my point is, so I'm going to pay Pierce a bench player $15M for 25 minutes. So how is the other 15 -20 minutes made up, with a lesser player? It is all backward. You are trying to bend to accomodate Pierce at the expense of the rest of the team.

It's like trying to place a square object into a round hole....does not quite work out.

112288

112288,

I was actually talking about Pierce and Jeff Green. Green starts (he is the "high quality starter") and Pierce gets less minutes off the bench. In this case, it doesn't matter who gets paid more and who gets paid less.

Some players are over-paid, some are under-paid. That is the reality of the NBA. Why put all your focus on who gets over-paid, all the while ignoring the fact that Green may turn out to be a bargain at 8.7mil?

The key here is that Pierce agrees to come off the bench. I don't know if he will do it. A couple years of him coming off the bench would be sweet, IMO. It would keep him fresh for the playoffs, instead of how it has worked out the last few years.

gyso

Gyso,

I see your point....... to solve this thing with PP...buy him out ay $5M......then resign for 2 years $3-4M and I'll be happy.

112288

Why would Pierce agree to that?

He is a $15 million dollar player in the NBA. Maybe not for the Celtics, but no way he takes 1/3 of his worth. None of you guys would take a job for 33% of your value.

MrK

He's not worth it anymore.

112288

Mrkleen,

If one-third of my value were $5 million, and I wouldn't have to do any work for the rest of my lift, I'd do it. Heck, I'd do it for half that amount. LOL.

Sam

112288 wrote:MrK

He's not worth it anymore.

112288

If I were Pierce, I would let the market tell me that.

Here are people in the same range that Pierce is STILL as good as, or better than:

-Rudy Gay (16.4)
-Luol Deng (13.3)
-Josh Smith (13.2)
-Danny Grainger (13.2)
-Hedo Turkoglu (11.
-Corey Maggette (11.6)

I would like to wish that PP took a big cut to stay here, but why would he?

MRK,

The value in a player is very deceptive. Pierce going to a team on the cusp of winning a title.......you pay him $12M for a 1 year deal. For the Celtics.......they are at a point that they will not win a title with the current roster....even Danny said they are several players away or unless you get a super...super star like Howard. So the Celtic value to pay Pierce $15M is not there.

But I do agree PP should see what the market brings.

112288

It will be interesting to see what the Celtics do with Pierce.
If they don't plan on having him back, it is clearly in their best interests to amnesty him. Would they do that to Paul knowing that he has to play for whatever team makes the highest offer for him? I could see a team like Cleveland or Phoenix putting in a significant offer for 1 year.

If they waive him, then he can choose what team he plays for.

tjmakz wrote:It will be interesting to see what the Celtics do with Pierce.
If they don't plan on having him back, it is clearly in their best interests to amnesty him. Would they do that to Paul knowing that he has to play for whatever team makes the highest offer for him? I could see a team like Cleveland or Phoenix putting in a significant offer for 1 year.

If they waive him, then he can choose what team he plays for.

TJ,

Speaking of amnesty, do you think the Lakers will do that with Kobe? He'll be 35 in August, is in the last year of his contract and makes almost $28M. That's almost half the salary cap, one player. This question is coming up only because he is trying to come back from one of the most devastating injuries an athlete can have, a torn Achilles. If he was just coming off an ACL/MCL that'd be bad enough at his age, but I think a torn Achilles Tendon is much worse. I'd defer to a medical professional (Worcester?) but I'm inclined to think that'd be a career-ender for most, even younger athletes. Of course, I might be stuck in the past, medically-speaking, and these are now par-for-the-course. If he was healthy then I wouldn't be asking about amnesty, he'd be a go in purple-and-gold.

Just wondering your opinion.

bob


.