POST GAME - DETROIT - HOME

swish wrote:The importance of a winning culture:

           Celtics

2005-06---- w/l = 33-49, win % =.402
2006-07---- w/l = 24-58, win % =.293
2007-08-----w/l = 66-16, win % = .805

swish

swish,

The trades for Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett, two perennial all-stars and future HOFers, as well as all the supportive talent we were able to sign because we had them (James Posey, Eddie House, PJ Brown) might have had something to do with turning the franchise around and creating that winning record in 2007-2008 too.  The question I would ask is "if we had NOT made those trades, if we had kept West, Wally, Al Jefferson, Ryan Gomes, Telfair and the rest and taken Jeff Green in the draft ourselves instead of sending that pick to Seattle/OKC, would we have produced a comparable result?"  I say no, for a couple of reasons.

Youth is wasted on the young.  That is often true in basketball as well.  Who was the last championship team that we could name that could be described as "young"?  Miami's not really that young, certainly not DWade's knees, but maybe them and they have the best player on the planet.  Other than them, though?  Winning basketball is about execution, not running fast and jumping high.

Talent wins championships.  There are only 5 players from a team on the floor at any one time and, in the playoffs, rarely does the bench go any deeper than the next 5 barring injury.  No other team sport is more impacted by the talent and play of an individual player than basketball.  You gotta have the horses and drafting ponies and hope they grow up to be the type and combination of thoroughbreds and Clydesdales that can work together is a crap shoot.



bob


.

Bob

Being too young can, ( and is ) a major deterrent to putting together a championship team. I agree with you on this. Its the reason that Danny chose to trade off the young players that he had accumulated through the draft along with a high draft pick for Allen and Garnett. I'm well aware that there are no guarantees in the draft. And of course there's no guarantee that having cap space is going to enable you to pick up a free agent of choice. The trade route also has its perils. For the most part its an equal value swap and its not always that easy to match up two teams to pull off a trade.In fact I'm strongly in favor of using all 3 methods to rebuild the Celts. I certainly wouldnt exclude the draft since Danny made excellent use of his draft chips and high draft pick to land Allen and Garnett. Hey this could be a 3 or 4 year rebuilding process. I guess I'm not the average Celts fan. I must spend too much time with my General Managers hat on.

Swish

Gyso,

I distinctly remember that point so that is why I commented on that possibility as I read that they could draft and wait a year.  It was in one of the sites SB Nation or Bleacher or one other about a month or so ago.

I would not post anything I was not positive on or have not read in my post. If it was wrong then blame the publication.

112288

Berlin T,

That is weird logic I truly do not understand!

112288

Let us remember something, without the draft talent over the years, the Garnett and Allen deal would have been just a dream and no banner #17.........those good draft choices made this all happen and if we are in a #4 seed to draft that is like gold if you were to set up a major trade with another team verses seed #7,8 9 or what ever.

112288

112288 wrote:Gyso,

I distinctly remember that point so that is why I commented on that possibility as I read that they could draft and wait a year.  It was in one of the sites SB Nation or Bleacher or one other about a month or so ago.

I would not post anything I was not positive on or have not read in my post. If it was wrong then blame the publication.

The Bird Collegiate Rule was passed shortly after Boston acquired Bird to prevent that situation from occurring again. Can't happen.

If Wiggins, Embiid, and Parker (or any other college underclassman) decides to stay in school, they can't be drafted. They can only be drafted if they declare for the draft.

So yet another risk in tanking for the sake of a better draft pick this year is that they guys you are tanking for may not even be in the draft.

112288 wrote:Berlin T,

That is weird logic I truly do not understand!

112288

Too bad.

When Bird was drafted it was because his Senior class that he WOULD have been with had graduated but because he took his 5th year (1 at Indiana in which he walked on campus and walked off counted as a year of eligibility, thus he had 4 years left to play. When he was a junior he was actually senior eligible as he had been "in school" for 4 years, thus under the rules of that time he was eligible to be drafted, he didn't need to do anything. The C's retained his rights for the entire year and if he wanted to go back into the draft he could have, but thank God Red signed him.

The NBA did away with the ability for teams to do this very soon thereafter.

OR THEY MAY JUST BE IN THE DRAFT!

112288

Outside,



I love the image except . . . most of the numbers on the ping pong balls are too high!!

gyso

112288 wrote:OR THEY MAY JUST BE IN THE DRAFT!

Yeah, you're on board with tanking. I got that. But if you're going to go with tanking, understand all the risks, including that the guys you're tanking for may not be in the draft. Your previous posts regarding Wiggins, Embiid, and Parker didn't acknowledge that possibility at all or relied on the Larry Bird scenario that doesn't exist anymore.

Tanks, but no tanks.

swish wrote:The importance of a winning culture:

           Celtics

2005-06---- w/l = 33-49, win % =.402
2006-07---- w/l = 24-58, win % =.293
2007-08-----w/l = 66-16, win % = .805

swish

Having a bad team - and not being capable of winning often - is not the same as telling a team to go out and tank it, or making moves that intentionally cause a team to lose.

The 2007 Celtics team was a TERRIBLE team - this year's team is not good, but far from terrible.  Suggesting things turned around in 2008 because of the team tanked it in 2007 couldn't be further from the truth.

At the end of the day - with it being March and the team is still playing hard on a regular basis - it is clear they are not being told to play for a high lottery pick, so most of the back and forth here is moot anyway.

well outside that is true, like I said if were not contending I'd like to us get the best pick possible, every draft is different, we need some luck....

Outside,

You must be in outer space! That is your sole opinion that they might not be in the draft as they VERY WELL MAYBE IN THE DRAFT........So ok what are saying is you are clairvoyant and you know all top picks are going to do ok got it!

Second, please clarify what is your meaning of risks...or does it mean anything to support your side of an argument as usual.

And if you only took the time to read a response to GYSO, I stated that I only mentioned that possibility from an article written by a scribe over a month ago, and I clearly said than that the publication was wrong!

ALSO YOUR POST OF WHAT I SAID "Your previous posts regarding Wiggins, Embiid, and Parker" Yooooo...I never mentioned those names in any post on this topic!

Open your eyes and READ DUDE!

112288

112288 wrote:Outside,

You must be in outer space! That is your sole opinion that they might not be in the draft as they VERY WELL MAYBE IN THE DRAFT........So ok what are saying is you are clairvoyant and you know all top picks are going to do ok got it!

Second, please clarify what is your meaning of risks...or does it mean anything to support your side of an argument as usual.

I never said they definitively were not going to be in the draft, just that there have been various reports about them possibly staying in college for at least another year. For example:

http://www.sportsgrid.com/ncaa-basketball/some-big-names-that-nba-teams-are-tanking-for-may-not-enter-the-2014-draft-after-all/

There are other articles like this. You can also find articles saying one or more of them will likely come out. But my whole point is that it's not certain, and that purposely tanking to get one of them and then finding out they won't be in the draft would make the tanking less useful.

As for risks, there are numerous ones I see associated with tanking:

• Not getting as high a draft pick as desired based on the vagaries of bouncing ping pong balls, as happened with Tim Duncan.

• Tanking to get a better position in the draft and then having the desired underclassmen stay in school.

• Tanking, getting a better draft pick, getting a more desirable player, but then having that player not be as good as expected, thereby negating the whole reason for tanking.

• Enhancing a culture of losing within the team and organization. This is a matter of degree, as the team will obviously have a losing record this year regardless of whether they tank or not, but the malaise on a team like Philly that has lost 17 consecutive games and has people thinking that they won't win again this year is far different than a team that has wins peppered in with losses and a team that knows it's trying to win as much as possible.

• True tanking is bad for the fan base.

• True tanking is bad business, negatively affecting season ticket sales and ancillary revenue.

• Free agents, particularly role players, being turned off by the losing culture and the lack of hope for significant improvement.

I see all of these as risks associated with tanking. Encouraging tanking without acknowledging or appreciating these risks is like doing anything without acknowledging the potential negative consequences.

I see the whole tanking strategy as gambling with one of these potential outcomes:

• They get a higher pick, they select a more desirable player than would've been available if they hadn't tanked, and that player works out and has a significant positive impact.

• They don't get a higher pick.

• A player they were tanking for isn't available (they should be tanking with specific players in mind to tank for, otherwise tanking is stupid)

• They get a higher pick, but they player they select winds up being less than tankworthy.

With all that in mind, tanking in my mind is a crapshoot. I consider not tanking and using the collection of picks to draft as well as possible and as trade assets to build a contender over time to be the more practical and less risky approach.

112288 wrote:And if you only took the time to read a response to GYSO, I stated that I only mentioned that possibility from an article written by a scribe over a month ago, and I clearly said than that the publication was wrong!

ALSO YOUR POST OF WHAT I SAID "Your previous posts regarding Wiggins, Embiid, and Parker" Yooooo...I never mentioned those names in any post on this topic!

Open your eyes and READ DUDE!

I don't understand why you're so hostile here.

Yes, I read your response to gyso where you mentioned that you read something in SB Nation or Bleacher Report about the scenario of drafting a player who was still in college. Does that mean I cannot even mention in passing your previous post where you suggested that idea?

No, you didn't mention the names of Wiggins, Embiid, and Parker, but you said this (bold emphasis mine):

If they stay in school one more year and get picked this year they still belong to the team that picked them this year.....remember Larry Bird!

And this:

OR THEY MAY JUST BE IN THE DRAFT!

In both cases, "they" is in reference to my posts specifically mentioning those three players, so I don't see why you're implying that we weren't discussing those players.

I'm not trying to be confrontational or to discuss this in anything other than a convivial way. All I've been doing is pointing out facts to support my position that tanking is the wrong way to go.

Outside,

Your arguments are logical and precise, but I don't think the are going to have any effect on certain unmentioned board members.

Thank you anyway for your efforts!

Now I understand Ourside........you must be abusing the new California law on medical marijuana and over indulging ..........at some point you have to exhale so you can lighten' up...............'Cause you are a California Dreaming on a Winters Day!

Later Dude!

112288

112288 wrote:Now I understand Ourside........you must be abusing the new California law on medical marijuana and over indulging ..........at some point you have to exhale so you can lighten' up...............'Cause you are a California Dreaming on a Winters Day!

Later Dude!

112288

112288,


Speaking as someone who just returned to California after a brutal winter week in Boston and NY, I don't understand why you're saying that like it's a bad thing.


bob


.

Tanking sure is a popular subject on this board. Now what I'd like to know is who on this Celtic team is guilty of tanking (deliberately trying to loose) ? Names please.

swish

I want us to win every game PERIOD! Losing to improve a slot or 2, at least under our current circumstances and given the draft is just not an option I can accept, and as swish just asked, what players on this team are going out there and throwing games?

There are no sure things in the future, not one college player in this draft is head and shoulders a difference maker IMHO. We are in line to get a key player perhaps 2. We still need to be under the cap for another year. Probably won't be a contender next season but with the weak East should at least fight for a lower Playoff spot then the following year????? Just so much uncertainty, and with DA who knows what is up his sleeve.

Bottom line again is I want us to win every time we walk out on that floor, I cannot root any other way.

beat

112288 wrote:Now I understand Ourside........you must be abusing the new California law on medical marijuana and over indulging ..........at some point you have to exhale so you can lighten' up...............'Cause you are a California Dreaming on a Winters Day!

Later Dude!

So your only response to my detailed and logical post supporting my position is that I must be smoking dope and a "Later Dude" because I live in California? That's not exactly a winning argument for your side.

swish wrote:Tanking sure is a popular subject on this board. Now what I'd like to know is who on this Celtic team is guilty of tanking (deliberately trying to loose) ? Names please.

Fortunately, no one.

After an effort like they had against Golden State, some people think they are. But as I said after that game, let's see how they respond, and they've responded with two straight wins. That should put the tanking idea to rest, but unfortunately it hasn't.

Not that it will change any minds here, but one thing I forgot to mention is that I think a far better way to get a higher pick in the draft is to trade for it, like trading two lower first-round picks to get a first or second overall from Philly or Milwaukee. Yet another way to leverage all those picks Ainge has accumulated.

Outside,

I was gonna say that the chances of those kids staying in school would be rather slim. What if they get injured while staying another year? This would instantly kill their draft stock and affect the amount of money they could make once drafted. I think it's more logical to take the money from a guaranteed contract. Sure, their games may not be as polished but if they are worthwhile players they'll figure it out anyway.



KJ

Since no one in the entire Celtics organization is even thinking about losing games intentionally, this discussion on tanking incorrectly presumes that we contributors to Sam's Celtics Forum have uncanny psychic powers that are able to influence the outcomes of individual games and the Celts' won-loss record for the season. Hence the struggles to win this argument - to tank or not to tank. This reminds me of what I'd long thought was a quote from Henry Kissinger but actually was from Woodrow Wilson:
"The reason that university politics is so vicious is that the stakes are so small.