Does blockbuster trade impact Celtics?

By Chris Forsberg | ESPNBoston.com

The Celtics will see a little more of Andrew Bynum now.
The four-team blockbuster that officially delivered Dwight Howard to the Los Angeles Lakers on Friday will have ripple effects all over the NBA, but don't expect much to change for the Boston Celtics.

Yes, Boston's primary rival is getting one of the game's most dominant centers. But the Lakers account for a mere 2.4 percent of the Celtics' 82-game regular-season schedule, so outside of a little additional intrigue to the team's two February meetings, there's not much to get overly worked up about (unless the two sides meet again in the NBA Finals and Los Angeles' chances undoubtedly improved as they prepare to put Howard alongside an All-Star core that already included Kobe Bryant, Pau Gasol, and fellow offseason acquisition Steve Nash).

For Boston, the more noteworthy part of the four-team swap (full details HERE) is the fact that the Philadelphia 76ers landed a dominant big man of their own in bringing back Andrew Bynum. A spunky Philadelphia squad took the Celtics to seven games before bowing in the Eastern Conference quarterfinals last season. The 76ers had to part with Andre Iguodala as part of the deal, which will allow Paul Pierce to breath a little sigh of relief, but the addition of Bynum solidifies Philadelphia's frontcourt and adds some intrigue about their ability to contend in the East.


But here's the thing: Is Bynum's addition enough to push Philadelphia over the top? The 76ers had a curious offseason, letting bench scorer Lou Williams walk away and amnestying veteran big man Elton Brand. Philadelphia also added Nick Young and Kwame Brown, but we probably won't know if this mix is going to work until they get on the floor in late October.

The potential frontcourt pairing of Bynum and Lavoy Allen is somewhat worrisome for Boston, at least considering the success the 76ers had with Allen on the floor in the postseason. He was one of the rare big men that gave Kevin Garnett headaches. If Philadelphia can balance those two with Brown and Spencer Hawes, there's a formidable frontline for a Boston team thin on pure size.

You'll hear plenty of pundits noting that the Atlantic Division will be more intriguing this season as everyone but Toronto figures to be in the playoff mix. But since when do the Celtics worry about hanging division title banners? Boston was ready to cede the Atlantic to Philly last year before the wheels came off down the stretch for the 76ers and the Celtics surged to the crown. Let's remember that Boston won the division and still opened the playoffs on the road -- overall record is far more important than winning the Atlantic.

The Celtics should only be worried about whether the East as a whole gets better because of this deal as that directly impacts their primary goal of getting back to the NBA Finals.

The jury is out on Philadelphia, while the Magic have clearly taken a step back towards rebuilding mode. Howard is gone from the East and Bynum takes his place as one of the few legitimate elite big men in the conference. The Celtics were going to have to play Howard and Bynum a combined five times before the trade, that number simply jumps to six with Bynum entering the division (Boston was only scheduled to play Orlando three times this season).

Here's the bottom line: Celtics coach Doc Rivers often goes out of his way to stress that the Celtics don't worry too much about the opposition. There's not enough time in the regular season to worry much about game-planning on a night-to-night basis, so the focus has to be on your own team. Boston can't sit around worrying about how Bynum will mesh in Philly; the Celtics have to figure out how the likes of Jason Terry and Courtney Lee fit in their own lineup, and worry about reintegrating the likes of Jeff Green and Chris Wilcox after all the time they missed last season.

No part of Friday's blockbuster should force Boston to alter its overall strategy and its ultimate goal remains unchanged.

112288

That's pretty much the way I see it. Coaches and players don't spend precious time worrying about what might happen in a finals against the Lakers. In the first place, both teams have to get to the finals. In the second place, all sorts of contingencies might occur to change the situation—not the least of which would be injuries and the effects of age. In the third place, it's not axiomatic that a handful of excellent individual players—even when highly motivated—will be overpowering as a unit.

Case in point: 2003-04...Shaquille O'Neal, Kobe Bryant, Rick Fox, Gary Payton, Horace Grant, Karl Malone, Derek Fisher. Championship guaranteed, right? Nope!

Case in point: 1968-69...Wilt Chamberlain, Jerry West, Elgin Baylor. Championship guaranteed, right? Nope, that balloon completely fizzled.

My posts of the past day or so will attest to the fact that I agree with the author of this article that the trade could well impact the Celtics more in their own division than in a finals that won't come into focus for another 10 months.

The Lakers traded a very good center for a very good center. It's very possible Howard will follow the legacy of Wilt and Shaq with the Lakers. They couldn't shoot free throws either.

Sam

Hi,
Thanks for the article.
I agree with the last part: don't worry about someone - focus on yourself.
As for Philli status after the trade, I'd say it didn't change much. Skill- and talent-wise AB is ahead of AG but I don't think he possesses the same energizing quality as Iggy. Also, Philli will be weaker on defense without him, IMO.

AK

I'll give my 2 cents.....better make that 1 cent..............

I think it is a wash as far as what LA got. I think Bynum was an animal in the paint and tougher then Howard. What Bynum has that Howard lacks is a mean streak. Who will make Howard look better then what he is will not be Koby or Nash, it will be Pau Gasol.

As for the Celtics......it's going to put pressure on the wings and the back court to do better when playing LA and Philly. I believe we that part of the team equation in place, I can only hope we can find another big next year as we get out from under Pierces contract.

112288

its gonna be so much fun when, after kobe retires Howard demands a trade, then recinds it, then demands mike brown (or whoever) be fired, then asks for a trade, then has a bad back, then...

The season suddenly became much more interesting and exciting. The key to the trade is that Howard has to stay healthy and somehow get a clue.

Considering that back problems are partly stress-related, expect Superputz to get healthy quick. As far as getting a clue goes, - hate to say this - but I didn't think Lebum would get it until Paul and KG bullied him unbearably. At the very least, though, LeBum has been pushed aside and scarifed, momentarily anyway.

There's one big IF that lurks above all this speculation: the Celtics inchoate running game. The NBA has forgotten what it means and how it helps teams to dominate. There are so many lost arts of the NBA, the hook shot, moving without the ball, boxing out, etc. etc.; there is none greater than the fast break. The very essence of basketball isn't the jump shot or the slam dunk, it's tough-nosed defense and running the floor nonstop.

It may sound like a joke but that's the way James Naismith envisioned the game. The original rules didn't even allow for dribbling: it was pass the ball, play in-your-face defense, and run til the other guy dropped.

Danny Ainge has flown under the radar in assembling enough young legs for a potentially devastating fast break. If they can learn their roles and dedicate themselves to Danny's vision, there isn't a team in the league that can keep up with the Celtics if Rondo wants it that way. Give me fast break basketball, blitzkrieg basketball, and you can keep the big names.

Also, Kobe and Pau are getting their full share of minutes in the Olympics. One hopes they won't be too worn out by next season's playoffs. I mean, they're talking about rings like all they have to do is show up.

Matty,

As much as I'm not a fan of the Lakers (yellow and purple—what were they thinking? LOL), Howard would seem to be in the best possible position to mature. He's got starting teammates who not only know how to play but also know the pro basketball ropes, understand how important Dwight can be to the team, and will make it a point to develop that asset. He's got the Showtime stage on which to operate. He's got a point guard who ostensibly has the ability to complete the weaning process away from the triangle. He's obviously got the backing of management.

Where the I think the Lakers could face internal challenges is a year or two down the road. They got rid of one building chip for another in the trade, and they now appear to be the team with the relatively small window before age and injuries threaten to take their toll. I don't see them restocking from a position of strength in the draft any time soon. However, they are (obviously) very skilled in making advantageous deals, so they should never be counted out.

Gasol must be amazed that he's still there. I wouldn't be surprised if he'd been living out of suitcases for some time.

The person who is now on the hot seat is Mike Brown. Does he have what it takes to handle all the egos as well as Doc did and solidify the team chemistry in time to win the Championship during the aforementioned window?

We'll certainly see.

In the meantime, congratulations to our Lakers friends who must be justifiably ecstatic at this moment.

Sam

Sam

Think your dead on about Mike Brown. He is certainly going to be sailing on rough waters. Will he keep things in order? Egos in check?

beat

If you look at the numbers /36mpg for Howard and Bynum they're actually pretty close (except for ft %). When you consider, though, that Bynum had to share frontcourt rebounds with Gasol and Howard didn't have to share them with anybody, really, then Bynum's production looks more impressive. Same with frontcourt scoring. Who was sharing the ball down low with Howard? Nobody. Gasol got a lot of touches, probably more than Bynum, on the Lakers and Bynum's ppg was still not too far off of Howard's.

This comes back to the same hymn Sam has been singing for many years now. While individual stats can show some stuff it still has to be put into the context of 5-man units. When you've got another good rebounder on the court with you, your individual numbers will probably go down, but that's ok because the team is getting the ball. When you're the only one going for the ball because the rest of your teammates have been told to box out only, your numbers are probably going to go up.

One thing for sure, the Lakers won't want the ball in Howard's hands come crunch time. Remember when he bricked those two free throws in the Finals a few years back, giving D-Fish the chance to hit the clutch 3 and put the game into OT and the Lakers won that game and locked up the championship? Well, he still can't shoot free throws.

I hope Dwight's back is better too. He only played 54 games last season and none of them in the playoffs.

bob


.

As others have rightly pointed out, the biggest impact of the trade to Boston is that Bynum winds up with the 76ers. Philly has intriguing young pieces, and adding a top center to their lineup addresses their biggest weakness, but unfortunately for them, that isn't all they've done:

-- Gone are Andre Iguodala, Elton Brand, Lou Williams, and Jodie Meeks, four of their top seven guys in terms of minutes played last season.

-- Arriving are Bynum, Jason Richardson, Nick Young, Dorell Wright, and (gag) Kwame Brown.

The core of Jrue Holiday, Bynum, Evan Turner, and Thaddeus Young is intriguing, but on balance, I'm not sure if they're better than before. Young teams need veteran leaders, and they lost their two best guys, by far, in that department -- Iguodala and Brand. The guys to step into that role are... who exactly? Jason Richardson? Bynum? I don't know. Combine that with huge turnover on the roster and I think Philly is a big question mark.

As for Mike Brown, most people aren't fans of Eric Spoelstra and Scott Brooks, either. If it was all about coaching, it would've been Boston versus San Antonio in the finals. You gotta have the horses, and the coaches people don't think are any good are better than those people give them credit for.

Which brings me back to Mike Brown. I'm not a fan, but this situation is about as good as it gets for him. His main failings in Cleveland were 1) he was young and inexperienced; 2) he wound up catering to LeBron, who was allowed to run the franchise; and 3) the roster wasn't that great other than LeBron. Now Brown has the benefit of experience, the Lakers have ample leadership on the court and in management, and the talent on the roster is not an issue. This is about as good as it gets for him.

Outside

Hi,
Sorry, Outside. But the simple answer to Sam's question re: Mike Brown is NO.
Even if I hadn't lived in Cle and watched Cavs, I think 7 years is more than enough to come to conclusion that if Mother Nature didn't give you "it" no matter where, when or how, you're not going to get "it".
Sorry TJ. There's a Russian saying: you can't compare God's gift with scramble eggs (my loose translation). I'm talking about PJ vs MB.

AK

sinus007 wrote:Hi,
Sorry, Outside. But the simple answer to Sam's question re: Mike Brown is NO.
Even if I hadn't lived in Cle and watched Cavs, I think 7 years is more than enough to come to conclusion that if Mother Nature didn't give you "it" no matter where, when or how, you're not going to get "it".
Sorry TJ. There's a Russian saying: you can't compare God's gift with scramble eggs (my loose translation). I'm talking about PJ vs MB.

AK

Nobody is comparing PJ to MB. It is quite insulting to say that Brown wasn't given the mental capacity from mother nature to succeed.
Brown has coached 6 years and his record is 313-163.
In Doc Rivers first 8 years as a coach his record was 39 games under .500.
Not many coaches win titles from the start of their career.
Many on this board said that Miami will never win a title with Spoelstra as a head coach.
I should repost some old Spoelstra threads to show people how wrong they were about him.

Bob, I've been reading that we should expect to see Gasol popping more from outside so as not to clog the middle for Howard. Pau has pretty good timing in crashing the outside boards from the outside, so I can see Pau and Dwight being a pretty good tag team on the offensive boards.

Outside, you made an important observation about the lack of veteran player leadership on the Philly team. On the other hand, is the need for such leadership from within the roster as great on a team controlled as tightly as Collins does? Time will tell.

Maybe Mike Brown will surprise me. But I didn't think his first year with the Lakers demonstrated any more coaching ability than what he displayed with the Cavs (which I thought was pedestrian at best). And he had quite a bit of experience by last year. But maybe he needs to be cut some slack given the immensity of the task of coaching on the L.A. stage, dealing with some strong-willed players, integrating new players to the chemistry, following in Phil's footsteps, changing the offensive system, etc.

I believe Mike's best chance at getting a solid grip on the reins of that team will be if the Lakers jump out to a really good start. If they should bog down early (even if it's only because they haven't yet coalesced) the seeds of skepticism and impatience could easily be sown among Kobe et al (to say nothing of the media and fans). Moreover, expectations will be so high for the Lakes that even a mediocre start could potentially be considered unacceptable by themselves and their constituents.

The Lakers may have ample leadership on the court, but could there be too much of it? One reason I'm not a Kobe fan is that he has a takeover default that seems almost automatically triggered in times of trouble. He has the ability to change gears and become a one-man gang. He can say all the right team-oriented things, but I've always believed that the only real resemblance between Kobe and a Black Mamba is his forked tongue.

One question I've always had was whether the rest of the team has the ability to provide a complementary adjustment to Kobe's in-game transformations. And will the addition of another strong leader (of course I'm speaking of Nash, I don't think Howard has leadership genes—at least not constructive ones) help or complicate the situation? Perhaps Kobe can sublimate that takeover tendency with Nash around. I'll have to be convinced.

Sam

tjmakz wrote:

sinus007 wrote:Hi,
Sorry, Outside. But the simple answer to Sam's question re: Mike Brown is NO.
Even if I hadn't lived in Cle and watched Cavs, I think 7 years is more than enough to come to conclusion that if Mother Nature didn't give you "it" no matter where, when or how, you're not going to get "it".
Sorry TJ. There's a Russian saying: you can't compare God's gift with scramble eggs (my loose translation). I'm talking about PJ vs MB.

AK

Nobody is comparing PJ to MB. It is quite insulting to say that Brown wasn't given the mental capacity from mother nature to succeed.
Brown has coached 6 years and his record is 313-163.
In Doc Rivers first 8 years as a coach his record was 39 games under .500.
Not many coaches win titles from the start of their career.
Many on this board said that Miami will never win a title with Spoelstra as a head coach.
I should repost some old Spoelstra threads to show people how wrong they were about him.

TJ,
First, I never said anything about mental capacity. The discussion was about coaching abilities therefore my "it" meant exactly that - coaching talent.
Second, I'm expressing my opinion. Opinion that was formulated on 7 years of watching how he performed.
Third, I do compare MB to PJ because they coach the same team with many of the same players.
Fourth, if you resort to the tactics of "you're an idiot" (the conversation wasn't about Doc, not even close) it's a very lame and kills the discussion.

AK

sinus007 wrote:

tjmakz wrote:

sinus007 wrote:Hi,
Sorry, Outside. But the simple answer to Sam's question re: Mike Brown is NO.
Even if I hadn't lived in Cle and watched Cavs, I think 7 years is more than enough to come to conclusion that if Mother Nature didn't give you "it" no matter where, when or how, you're not going to get "it".
Sorry TJ. There's a Russian saying: you can't compare God's gift with scramble eggs (my loose translation). I'm talking about PJ vs MB.

AK

Nobody is comparing PJ to MB. It is quite insulting to say that Brown wasn't given the mental capacity from mother nature to succeed.
Brown has coached 6 years and his record is 313-163.
In Doc Rivers first 8 years as a coach his record was 39 games under .500.
Not many coaches win titles from the start of their career.
Many on this board said that Miami will never win a title with Spoelstra as a head coach.
I should repost some old Spoelstra threads to show people how wrong they were about him.

TJ,
First, I never said anything about mental capacity. The discussion was about coaching abilities therefore my "it" meant exactly that - coaching talent.
Second, I'm expressing my opinion. Opinion that was formulated on 7 years of watching how he performed.
Third, I do compare MB to PJ because they coach the same team with many of the same players.
Fourth, if you resort to the tactics of "you're an idiot" (the conversation wasn't about Doc, not even close) it's a very lame and kills the discussion.

AK

So, you know that Mother Nature didn't give Brown the ability to be a top coach?
I would be very surprised if you could come up with any legitimate reasons on why Brown is not or could not be a good/great coach.
Have you watched Brown to any extent or read about his coaching style?
You haven't watched Brown coach for 7 years, he has coached for 6.
Do you really believe that PJ would have led the Lakers past OKC this year? I clearly don't.
I don't even know what your "you're an idiot" comment refers to.
Doc was 39 games under .500 until his 9th year.
Then he was a Championship Coach.
My bringing up Doc is not lame, it was an example to refute "your opinion".

Sorry if my question (about Brown's ability to accomplish all the challenges that could confront him during what I consider a narrow window of opportunity) hit some nerves. We all have different perspectives and points of reference, and maybe it's just better to consider this matter "discussed" and move on.

Sam

TJ,
If you haven't understood by now let me try again.
I am of the opinion that Mike Brown is a very mediocre NBA head coach (yes, you're right - he's been in Cle for 6 years).

And, please do not try to force your opinion on me. Thank you very much.

AK

sinus007 wrote:TJ,
If you haven't understood by now let me try again.
I am of the opinion that Mike Brown is a very mediocre NBA head coach (yes, you're right - he's been in Cle for 6 years).

And, please do not try to force your opinion on me. Thank you very much.

AK

Sorry, this is way more then saying he is a mediocre coach.
Even if I hadn't lived in Cle and watched Cavs, I think 7 years is more than enough to come to conclusion that if Mother Nature didn't give you "it" no matter where, when or how, you're not going to get "it".

I don't even want to guess what "it" is in your above statement...
I am not forcing my opinion on anyone.
You have no basis for saying that Brown will not succeed as a coach in the future.
Brown has the 3rd highest winning percentage of all active coaches.
If Brown wasn't the coach of the Lakers I doubt you would make the same derogatory statement about him.

Mike Brown did a very good job in Cleveland with one really good player and several B+'s. I don't know why observers are so critical of him. but the topic actually bores me. I'd rather be thinking about Carla Gugino.

W,

Frankly, I don't know enough about Mike Brown to determine whether he's a good coach of a bad coach. And maybe that's just the point. In six or seven (or whatever number of) seasons, there has been time for word to get around that, regardless of won/lost record, he has particular coaching strengths: player relations? player development" roster management? game strategy? media relations?

Doc has been used as a comparison, with his won/lost record as some kind of "evidence." That's completely bogus in terms of what I'm describing. When Doc arrived, his reputation in dealing with players preceded him. Ha parlayed that reputation into very successful blending of young guys with an established star and some journeymen with the result being development of some primo trading chips for Danny. As he was given better players, he motivated them to work together and produced a championship. And, despite the injuries and lack of a championship since then, Doc's reputation has only grown.

That's what a good coach can do in a handful of years. I haven't seen any "signature abilities" from Mike Brown. I'll be happy to admit it if and when I do.

In one sense, I feel somewhat badly for the guy. If he should win the championship, the premier players will get the credit. If he should not win the championship with the premier players, he'll very likely get blamed.

Sam

Sam - "In one sense, I feel somewhat badly for the guy. If he should win the championship, the premier players will get the credit. If he should not win the championship with the premier players, he'll very likely get blamed."

Your statement holds a lot of truth, that Mike Borwn will probably be blamed if the Lakers lose and not get credit if they win. Certainly Mike is not the coach Doc is, and Doc has done extremely well given the enormous adversity he has faced as a coach with the Celtic's injuries and limited bench. He's developed several players into good and great players....
Rondo being the great one and Tony Allen, Al Jefferson, Kendrick Perkins, and Big Baby and Bass being the good ones. Even Ryan Gomes and Delonte West thrived under Doc's tutelage. Also Tom Thibodeau came into his own with Doc, and the Celts defense didn't miss a beat when Tom, whom I respect greatly, left to coach the Bulls. So I say, "Yay, Doc" and "Mike Brown, whatever."

I don't care one way or another about Mike Brown. I wish nothing but ill for players like Howard, James and their ilk. These are the children of entitlement. These are the athletes that have been catered to ALL their lives. They haven't worked for a damn thing like the pro athletes of Russell, Havlicek, & Larry's eras. They just cry, piss & moan, stomp their feet until some owner relents and trades them or allows them to walk to the team or city (Lakers, Heat- LA, Miami) where they want to go. In the traditional sense, owners that put their hard earned money into establishing a franchise as a part of a community were far more respected by pro athletes of the past. They were thankful for being able to make a good living playing a kid's game. From the 70's on, after Jabbar disrespected the good folks of Milwaukee to James' back turning or stabbing of the people of Ohio to Howard's escape from Orlando all bets are off. When Red Auerbach built the Celts, he didn't resort to free agency, he did it the right way via player development, draft, & trades. Now check books rule with the promise of lucrative endorsements and even film & TV fame to follow. Loyalty is a forgotten tern, foreign in today's sports society. It sickens me to the point of nausea. It would serve these spoiled brats, and Stern right if the entire NBA folds and we just let the Lakers & the Heat barnstorm around the country like the old Negro league baseball teams did to crowds that would pay to see them play. There is no equity in today's NBA, or major league baseball. The NFL comes closest with its' non guaranteed contracts. That's a great incentive to perform. If you don't, as the late Ray Charles said, "Hit the Road Jack."

Md,

To be fair, Red did not have the option of free agency except for players who were cut or retired.

But an interesting topic would be whether, all things considered (including the rights of players to maximize their earning potential), basketball is better off with free agency than it was without free agency. I suppose the easy answer was that the fans were better off without it while the players were better off with it. But I wonder if that's the entire story.

I'd like to tap some of the great minds on this board to see if there might be other perspectives that should be considered.

Sam

Why do some expect players to play their whole career with one team? This is not the 1950's anymore. Just because a team might luck out through the bounce of a ping pong ball, that doesn't mean the player is required to stay a decade or more with that team.

LeBron played 7 years with Cleveland and Dwight played 8 years with Orlando. LeBron earned free agent status and Dwight would have done so next summer if he was not traded. They have every right to leave when eligible but unfortunately, the way the both of them left was classless and embarrassing.

Having stars play in major markets is good for the NBA in general but not the small market teams. The large market teams carry the NBA.

The NBA is extremely popular right now despite the drama with LeBron, Carmelo and Howard. Their TV ratings increased 25% last season even with the lock out. The average attendance at a game increased from 16,661 per game in the 2010-11 season to 17,273 last season.

It's not just LeBron and Howard who have been financially successful since they were teenagers/early 20's. Most stars from every team were millionaires from the day they signed their first contract. We need to put blame on the owners who year after year, keep signing players to contracts that at the time seem crazy.

The NBA has done a good job in reducing maximum contracts. Back in the late 1990's and early 2000's, players routinely signed 7 year/$100-$127m contracts. Many of these players were not even stars. Now, the max they can sign for is 5 years with bird rights and 4 years without bird rights.

Sam:

You're correct about Red not having the option of free agency. However, Red didn't need it either.

MD!