Boston's Last Run?

HOOPS WORLD

The idea the Boston Celtics will rebuild in the summer of 2012 is not a new one. In fact, that was the main reason Ray Allen was given the two-year, $20 million contract in the summer of 2010, in order to bring his in line with the ending of Kevin Garnett's. It's also the same reason both Shaquille O'Neal and Jermaine O'Neal signed two –year deals the same summer.

The idea was to give the core of the Celtics two more years to make a bid for a championship, then rebuilding around the talents of point guard Rajon Rondo. Then, one or two seasons of transition built around the leadership and scoring of Paul Pierce, who also signed a new deal in 2010 running through 2014 (the final year not fully guaranteed), before fully turning the team over to a new guard. The Celtics currently have $29.4 million on the books for 2012-13 to only three players.

With the lockout in place and most expecting it to run into January if not taking an entire season, it might be time for the Celtics to turn the page now. In fact, it might be worth exploring that even if there is some sort of 2011-12 season.

Allen and Garnett are each 35 years old; Pierce is 33. As players age they tend to not recover from wear and tear as quickly, nor return as quickly from injuries. Garnett, mostly a rock with the Minnesota Timberwolves, has missed at least 11 games in each of his four seasons with the Celtics. Allen has not missed many games in the same four years, but many of his numbers – including his minutes – have gone down (before taking a slight uptick last season due to so many injuries to teammates). Pierce, as well, has seen his numbers go down in recent seasons.

Part of this is the effect of playing together and having great team chemistry, but some of it also has to be attributed to age, or the protecting of the players by the coaching staff because of age.

On the surface a shortened season would seem to be an advantage to the Celtics, a team built on chemistry and defense, but it depends. If the season is simply shortened, then yes, Boston may very well have an advantage. However, if the season starts in February like it did in 1999, it may be condensed rather than shortened. Remember teams playing back-to-back-to-backs? Multiple weeks of five games? The recovery time between games is minimal.

In 1999 Boston played its first game on February 6th and its fiftieth on May 5th, a span of 89 days. That's one game every 1.78 days. For comparison sake, during the 2010-11 season Boston played its first game on October 26th and game 82 on April 13th, a span of 170 days - a game every 2.07 days. It may not sound like a lot, but that difference of almost 0.3 days between games can make a major difference when talking about recovery time for an aging player's body, and that recovery time is essential to avoiding injuries that come from wear and tear.

Yes, all teams are in the same boat. And yes, the Celtics, if their players are healthy, will presumably have the advantage over teams led by players who don't know each other as well (the veteran San Antonio Spurs won the title in 1999), but the operative term in that sentence is "healthy." That's the million dollar question right there:

If there is a shortened/condensed 2011-12 season of some kind, can the Boston Celtics stay healthy enough to take advantage of it?

112288

A provocative article as usual, 112288. I have an opposing viewpoint, but it's certainly not aimed at you because all you did was to post an article.

Can someone please go to the fifth paragraph and tell me what the third word in the paragraph ("this") is referring to? The previous paragraph lists ways in which the performance of the Three Amigos has deteriorated. The first sentence in the next paragraph begins, "Part of this is the effect of playing together and having great team chemistry......" Huh??????

I'm not just taking a gratuitous potshot at the logic in the prose. I have equal difficulty finding some sense in a rationale that the Celtics should start the rebuilding at a point in time when a reduced schedule could be the best thing that ever happened to them. Of course injuries can happen, and they most likely will happen. But will they have as serious an impact as last season, when an aging team lost two expected mainstay centers for much of the season and still lasted through the second round of the playoffs?

I say, why not actually see what Danny comes up with and play the season with the players then on hand. In my mind, the worst that could happen will be that newer players will be forced into a baptism of fire, which could very well expedite their maturation for the future.

And perhaps the second worst thing that could happen would be to acquire one or more MAJOR resources by trading expiring contracts near the end of the season.

So what if the allegedly superhuman players of today are forced to play a game every 1.8 days? I know a team that routinely played at roughly that pace every season (as many as five games in five nights on occasion), performed at a vastly higher pace, was permeated by aging veterans in most seasons, won the championship almost every season, and topped off that era of relative senescence by playing 82 games at the rate of one game every 1.9 days and breaking the balloons of a bitter rival. Big freaking deal!

Sam

Sam,

The article appears to be written by a bored sports writer who as gotten too much sun and had to get into the shade and find something to do.

112288

I'm not exactly sure where to post this and my schedule doesn't allow me the time and opportunity to start and impel a separate thread for this but:

I'm of the belief that every team has to have at least one "unstoppable". An "unstoppable" is a player that can take over a game, through scoring and/or passing, for the last few minutes of the game. The Lakers have proved that having Kobe is invaluable, even if he does hog the ball too much. The Spurs had Duncan, who is a masterpiece and a GREAT team ball player. I know the Celtic way is to NOT have a single dominating player, but having (at least) one creates opportunities for a balanced offense. If a team overplays the unstoppable, then they cannot gamble on defense on the other 4.

We've been using Pierce as our unstoppable for years, even with the creation of the 3 Amigos. He's the one who has the ball in his hands with the clock winding down more times than not. Therefore, IMO, he is the player we should be most focused on replacing.

bob
P.S. KG missing 11 games/season is not a big thing. It just seems big since they were generally consecutive. Ray Allen's minutes are down, but he was already playing too many.


.

Sam,

"This" I assume what the writer is trying to say is why Pierce's numbers are down.

112288

Bob,

That is a pretty good observation. However I do not think you can pick one position (SF) and say get an impact player to replace Pierce. Perhaps its a power forward or center or shooting guard.

But you are right, one impact player is needed.

112288

Bob,

When The Trade occurred, I had hopes that Jeff Green could be the kind of "go to" player you're describing. I refuse to make any determinations based on a portion of one season in which the entire team was trying to get its collective act together.

For the moment, at least, I don't see anyone else on the team who potentially qualifies. Rondo would probably come the closest, and he has certainly qualified in any number of games. But his best chance for greatness seems to be as a combination enabler/defensive catalyst; and the kind of guy to whom you're referring almost certainly has to be a great offensive player.

I'm asking myself whether Russell would have qualified, and he probably would have. But only because his defense and rebounding were so predictably dominating in the clutch.

Sam

Stupid article based on a bunch of assumptions and bunk reasoning.

ANYTHING could happen tomorrow...so lets blow it all up today. Talk about moronic reasoning.

Bob and Sam,

I'm in agreement that an impact player is needed, but I think he's already here; Rajon Rondo.

Looking at recent trades and draft picks I would say the idea is to put players on the floor with skills complimentary to Rondo's game.

I think that we're looking at the start of a move toward a younger, faster, more athletic lineup. I should add that at least that's what I hope we're seeing. Rondo on the floor with Green (SF) and Johnson(C) could provide the nucleus for a high scoring uptempo offense. Those same three could be strong mainstays on defense as well.

West and Moore might provide complimentary bodies off the bench. From there, well, there's a lot of seats to fill. Depending on the results of the lockout we might have the money to fill those seats nicely starting in 2012.

Regards

NYCelt,

i hope and expect to see Rondo make a significant impact for years to come. However, I'm not sure he's the impact player in the sense Bob was describing, as such a player usually has a diverse and consistent offensive arsenal that has the potential to overcome any defense thrown at them when the chips are down. To date, at least, Rondo's clutch offensive skills (as opposed to his playmaking skills) have too frequently proven susceptible to defenses that sag off him and/or can put taller players (like Kobe) on him. His best offensive move is to outquick the opponent in penetration, but he often gets fouled. Until his free throw shooting improves, that's not a particularly palatable option for the Celtics down the stretch.

I hope Rondo will improve the necessary skills to be the kind of impact, "go to" threat I think Bob was describing. He's still my favorite current Celtic, and I look forward to a team built around his strengths as you suggest.

Sam

Sam,

I don't know that we'll see that much improvement at the stripe from a player with Rondo's experience at this stage of his career. I'm thinking of him more as a significant playmaker and defender.

After that, if we're looking for a single player to take the ball to the hoop and being that the NBA is still a guard or swingman's league, I'm all for finding a clone of Paul Pierce. If only it was just that easy!

Regards

mrkleen09 wrote:Stupid article based on a bunch of assumptions and bunk reasoning.

ANYTHING could happen tomorrow...so lets blow it all up today. Talk about moronic reasoning.

star players getting to old to carry a team is not a bunk rational, it's a truth. The Celtics are too old to seriously contend. Depending on matchups, they're a 2nd round team as they are currently constructed, perhaps a conference finals if they meet up with the right team in the 2nd round (Magic come to mind). Rondo needs to break the funk he was in for the 2nd half of last year and continue to be an impact player like he was for the first 45 or so games in order to win a 2nd round series.

I don't have my hopes up for Green to be more than a good player, not a main player. I'm happy to have him, so long as the Celtics don't have to rely on him to be the top scorer.

Hi,
I tend to agree with Bob and Sam.
As for "the last run", I think it is if they manage to salvage the season. If the season is off I don't think Celtics will be running with the current core in 2012-2013 season.

AK

celtic fan wrote:star players getting to old to carry a team is not a bunk rational, it's a truth. The Celtics are too old to seriously contend. Depending on matchups, they're a 2nd round team as they are currently constructed, perhaps a conference finals if they meet up with the right team in the 2nd round (Magic come to mind). Rondo needs to break the funk he was in for the 2nd half of last year and continue to be an impact player like he was for the first 45 or so games in order to win a 2nd round series.

I don't have my hopes up for Green to be more than a good player, not a main player. I'm happy to have him, so long as the Celtics don't have to rely on him to be the top scorer.

If the Celtics have a serviceable center and one more scorer off the bench in the series against Miami - they win. Period. Does that sound too old to contend?

But yeah, instead of seeing what Danny can build to add to the mix, lets just blow it up and fall out of the playoffs - so we can hit it big with the draft lottery next summer

mrkleen09 wrote:

celtic fan wrote:star players getting to old to carry a team is not a bunk rational, it's a truth. The Celtics are too old to seriously contend. Depending on matchups, they're a 2nd round team as they are currently constructed, perhaps a conference finals if they meet up with the right team in the 2nd round (Magic come to mind). Rondo needs to break the funk he was in for the 2nd half of last year and continue to be an impact player like he was for the first 45 or so games in order to win a 2nd round series.

I don't have my hopes up for Green to be more than a good player, not a main player. I'm happy to have him, so long as the Celtics don't have to rely on him to be the top scorer.

If the Celtics have a serviceable center and one more scorer off the bench in the series against Miami - they win. Period. Does that sound too old to contend?

But yeah, instead of seeing what Danny can build to add to the mix, lets just blow it up and fall out of the playoffs - so we can hit it big with the draft lottery next summer

Or we can re-live the late 80's watch our aging core break down and struggle and cross our fingers that we don't wait another 22 years for another title. Ainge knows not to get nostalgic and to do what's best for the future of the team, loyalties be damned... at least I hope he does.

Celtic Fan,

I think Danny demonstrated exactly what you're saying by essentially trading Perk for Green and a third of a season of Krstic. Yes, it could be argued that Danny lost his bet when Shaq couldn't return. But nostalgia didn't stop Danny from rolling the dice and looking toward a more athletic, hopefully healthier team in the long term...plus reducing the minutes of a veteran team leader who's signed for three more years.

Sam

NYCelt wrote:Bob and Sam,

I'm in agreement that an impact player is needed, but I think he's already here; Rajon Rondo.

Looking at recent trades and draft picks I would say the idea is to put players on the floor with skills complimentary to Rondo's game.

I think that we're looking at the start of a move toward a younger, faster, more athletic lineup. I should add that at least that's what I hope we're seeing. Rondo on the floor with Green (SF) and Johnson(C) could provide the nucleus for a high scoring uptempo offense. Those same three could be strong mainstays on defense as well.

West and Moore might provide complimentary bodies off the bench. From there, well, there's a lot of seats to fill. Depending on the results of the lockout we might have the money to fill those seats nicely starting in 2012.

Regards

NYCelt,

In order for Rondo to be our "unstoppable" he has to have no obvious holes in his game. As of today, he has two: his shooting and his free throws. If I'm the opposing team's defensive coach I'm saying "let him shooting from 16' out. If he gets past you, foul him and put him on the line". His shooting has improved, but he's FAR from a player I want taking the last few shots and free throws? Please...

A good point was made about how we don't need to replace our unstoppable SF with another unstoppable SF. That's correct. When I was talking about Pierce being the one needing to be replaced, I was thinking about the role he plays on the team, not his position.

Sam's point about Green could be a good one. He's too big for a SF to guard and he can outrun and outquick PFs. Hopefully he'll find his niche and settle down this season (if there is a season).

bob

.

mrkleen09 wrote:

celtic fan wrote:star players getting to old to carry a team is not a bunk rational, it's a truth. The Celtics are too old to seriously contend. Depending on matchups, they're a 2nd round team as they are currently constructed, perhaps a conference finals if they meet up with the right team in the 2nd round (Magic come to mind). Rondo needs to break the funk he was in for the 2nd half of last year and continue to be an impact player like he was for the first 45 or so games in order to win a 2nd round series.

I don't have my hopes up for Green to be more than a good player, not a main player. I'm happy to have him, so long as the Celtics don't have to rely on him to be the top scorer.

If the Celtics have a serviceable center and one more scorer off the bench in the series against Miami - they win. Period. Does that sound too old to contend?

But yeah, instead of seeing what Danny can build to add to the mix, lets just blow it up and fall out of the playoffs - so we can hit it big with the draft lottery next summer

If Boston had a point guard that didn't dislocate his elbow and have torn ligaments in it mid-way through that Miami series they win it...