NBA.COM - Offseason Report Cards

http://www.nba.com/reportcard/offseason/2014/knicks/index.html?ls=iref:nbahpt3a

Celtics got a C.
Lakers got a D.

Thanks for posting this, TJ, but it's pretty downbeat on the C's. It seems like more a prediction of records in the upcoming season than an accurate assessment of a rebuilding program, in our case. I'd rather see the Celtics slowly build a champion than flail away with flashy, but ultimately, inadequate trades. Hawk

When I was in grade school, I always found myself questioning report card grades.  Some of mine were lower than I thought I deserved while other were higher than I thought I deserved.  There was a lot of subjectivity involved because the curricula structures were not so formally built around test results.

I still harbor the same gripe about report cards.  What are the criteria?  Are the rating categories the same for a team expected to compete for a title the same as a team expected to emphasize development?  Are they the same for a team that drafted for needed as a team that drafted the best player available?

So I take this report card as seriously as most report cards.  Not at all.  But maybe it will generate some debate, and that's what this board is all about.  It'll be so good when the focus of debate is more centered on performances that we can see for ourselves.

Sam

Sam

Sam,
The main difference between your report cards during your school years and the report cards from that link is that in your case they were written by your teachers who mostly knew what you did or didn't do, what you could or couldn't do. The other report cards are written by a person who mostly doesn't know what he's talking about. That's based on the Celtics' report card. Sorry, I don't follow other teams (except Cavs a little bit) - maybe he's right about some other teams. BTW, speaking about Cavs - I'd give them A+ just for getting LJ and KL.
Getting back to Celtics. How in the world Sully was less efficient last year than a year before with hurting back and less experience; how AB is on the way of Young; Wyc mentioned about "fireworks" in May not in March; how Zeller doesn't improve their frontcourt?

AK

PS Oops, my bad - Wyc did first mentioned fireworks in march.

I do not believe the Cavaliers offseason moves should be considered the benchmark for which all teams are judged. It just so happened that Lebron was destined to be born in Ohio, destined to be drafted by the Cavs, and destined to return. Convincing Kevin Love to join couldn't have been that difficult of a feat after that.

The Celtics deserve high marks for this offseason. I think Ainge did all he could and more to build a more competitive roster. It just wasn't in the cards to have a blockbuster deal to vault the team into championship contention.


KJ

Sam, My report cards were done in cuneiform on clay tablets. That's how old I am.

hawksnestbeach wrote:Thanks for posting this, TJ, but it's pretty downbeat on the C's. It seems like more a prediction of records in the upcoming season than an accurate assessment of a rebuilding program, in our case. I'd rather see the Celtics slowly build a champion than flail away with flashy, but ultimately, inadequate trades. Hawk

I agree as I looked over other teams "grades" there it seemed more of a grade on WHERE the team stood at this point in the off-season, rather than a grade for what they DID the off-season.