Slow Build Might Trump Quick Fix

by **bobheckler** Sat May 24, 2014 12:37 pm

http://espn.go.com/boston/columns/nba/story/_/id/10975763/boston-celtics-benefit-opting-slow-rebuild-rather-quick-fix

Slow rebuild might trump quick fix
Updated: May 23, 2014, 9:23 PM ET
By Chris Forsberg | ESPNBoston.com

Rebuilding stinks. And after the Boston Celtics endured a 57-loss campaign this past season, everyone from players to coaches to executives to fans can agree on that.

But it's also a necessary evil. The only way to get back to contender status -- and, more importantly, stay at contender status -- is to rebuild the right way and maximize every asset you have.

Now that we know Celtics will pick 6th and 17th, let's meet some draft prospects that might be available at those spots. 10 Possible Celtics Photo Gallery

Which is why we have a sobering thought for Celtics fans: Maybe it's not such a bad thing if the summer of 2014 is devoid of fireworks and the team has to endure one more transition year.

(Ducks and covers)

Let's be clear: There are too many moving parts to know exactly how the Celtics' offseason will play out. If the right deals materialize, and established talent can be added at reasonable rates, Boston absolutely shouldn't hesitate to reload this summer.

But the (Kevin) Lovefest this week left us with a case of sticker shock. Yes, the prospects of adding a bona fide NBA star and slamming the rebuilding accelerator is mighty intriguing, but at what price? Is it truly worthwhile to part with multiple first-round draft picks and young talent and other assets to add a single talent to the roster? In the NBA, maybe more than any other sport, having individual star power is supremely important, but having a deep, balanced and affordable roster doesn't hurt, either.

Make no mistake: The Celtics, throughout their history, have often built or maintained their success through deals. But the three D's that Celtics president of basketball operations Danny Ainge often preaches also includes "draft" and "development."

So it got us thinking about what kind of shape the Celtics might be in if they utilized picks Nos. 6 and 17 this summer and committed to building toward the future for one more season. The Celtics could still maneuver, but maybe there are ways for them to use their expiring assets (like a $10.3 million trade exception or Keith Bogans' nonguaranteed deal) to help shuffle around the draft board and land the players they are highest on.

The end game in that scenario remains the same: building toward the 2015-16 season. Here's why that intrigues me:

• For all the consternation about the Celtics landing the No. 6 pick in the draft, it's not a terrible spot. Sure, every team that missed out on a top-3 spot is kicking the dirt because of the talent available this year, but if the draft is as deep as it's made out to be, those in the 4-6 range stand to get what would normally be a top-3 talent in other drafts.

• Ainge and his staff have been terrific at identifying talent in the middle of the first round and, even if they had to part with a bit of their treasure chest to move around a bit this year, there's a quality opportunity to emerge with two quality players with those two picks.

• No one can be certain what the ceilings are for players like Jared Sullinger and Kelly Olynyk, but they're on encouraging paths. If the Celtics landed two more players in this draft who could eventually carve out roles in, say, their top eight, then half their core rotation would be set on affordable rookie pacts.

• Another rebuilding season puts Boston back in the lottery next summer. Sure, Boston brass said they had no desire to go through that process again after the pingpong balls defied them once more on Tuesday, but the Celtics' top pick next season could be used to add more talent or as a valuable trade chip.

• The salary cap is expected to rise in each of the next two seasons, and CBA guru Larry Coon noted it could land around $66.5 million for the 2015-16 season, with a luxury tax line of $81 million. Imagine a Celtics team where Sullinger, Olynyk, Pick No. 6 and Pick No. 17 combine to make less than $10 million for that 2015-16 campaign. That leaves an awful lot of space to complement them.

Let's say we're simply intrigued by the possibility of taking this process slow. Is that ideal? Probably not, especially not in Boston. But when the Celtics bestowed a six-year contract upon coach Brad Stevens, we always wondered if they knew this turnaround would take some time.

The team still has plenty of tough decisions to make in the interim. How much are the C's willing to pay to keep restricted free agent Avery Bradley? He's only 23 and would be another quality young body if retained at a reasonable rate. Is Rajon Rondo in the team's long-term future? He has expressed a desire to test unrestricted free agency next summer, and Boston must be willing to pay him something approximating max money if it plans to keep him around (otherwise, the Celtics must think harder about any trade offers that arrive this summer).

Boston has Jeff Green ($9.2 million) and Gerald Wallace ($10.1 million) on the books for that 2015-16 campaign, but Green has a player option he could decline in order to test the market (however unlikely that seems at the moment), while the Celtics might find it easier to move Wallace in the final year of his deal.

The crystal ball is hazy, but there seems to be a chance to have a bit of a fresh slate in 2015-16, with only young, cost-efficient players to build around. Boston would still have its surplus of picks it worked so hard to acquire in recent seasons. Some selections could be used to keep up the flow of incoming talent, while others could be traded to help pluck more established talent (perhaps players without quite the asking price of someone like Love).

Rebuilding stinks. But building slow might prevent Boston from having to endure that process again for a much longer period than a quick fix.

bob
MY NOTE: I'm not going to lie, the thought of another year like last one does not go down easily, not even when chased by an imperial pint of Anchor Steam or two or three, repeat as necessary ("necessary" having been roughly 57 times over the 82 game season), but there are a couple of good points being made here. On the other hand, the best way to build chemistry is to put a system in place and let the players have time in that system integrating it into their subconscious and if you are always short a player at a key position it's hard to do that. It's one thing to upgrade a position, it's another to limp along without one at all. That's why the "Kevin Love or no Kevin Love" is such a tough one. Can we do Love and Asik, and what would that leave us to work with? If we do Love, will that increase our likelihood of landing a center because we'll become a destination team for free agents who want to play with Rondo and Love or just make us a slightly better version of what we were last year? If we land Asik, and start to burn in Stevens' system (whatever that is) will that position us so that upgrades at individual positions will get the job done, like Pop does in San Antonio?

Forsberg talked about the benefits of having 3 core players being on rookie contracts in 2015. That's a good thing if the quality of the free agents in 2015 are good. Here's the list of players who will be free agents in 2015.

http://www.basketballinsiders.com/nba-salaries/nba-free-agents-2015-2016/

and 2016-2017 (for those players that will be going into their last contract year in 2015 and will become available):

http://www.basketballinsiders.com/nba-salaries/nba-free-agents-2016-2017/

.

by **beat** Sat May 24, 2014 3:11 pm

Bob

With the cards we have now... no moves and 2 pretty good picks, would we even be remotely close to as BAD as last year.

I know we are what are record is/was but look at the games we were in and could not close, Rondo missing so much time and then when he does come back takes a seat on the 2nd of back to backs, Kelly got better Sully was steady Bass was good and Hump was a surprise, Bayless, Bradley

We just are not that far away. Really, get a serviceable center and many other pieces fall into place. And even with out a "good" center, in the weak east we could surprise a lot of people with just an average one.........................As long as we don't sell out the farm to get one.

beat

by **k_j_88** Sun May 25, 2014 12:54 am

I voted slow build.

I see no value in making trades for the sake of doing so, especially if it means overfilling the need at one position while creating gaping holes at others positions (Kevin Love trade).

While I think the 6th pick will be traded, perhaps it would be more beneficial to keep it. I believe this is a very deep draft and the Celtics have the chance to add two good players to the team, hopefully a scorer and a legit big.

Bradley and Green are probably the biggest question marks going forward, then to a lesser extent Rondo. Will those two players be in the future plans Ainge has? For lack of better words, only time will tell.

KJ

by **RosalieTCeltics** Mon May 26, 2014 12:39 pm

I agree that a slow build is hard to swallow, BUT, if we fast forward too quickly, trade away our young guns, we will find ourselves in the same position as we are now in five years down the road. I feel developing slowly will be more rewarding. Just a thought.

Rosalie

by **worcester** Mon May 26, 2014 1:50 pm

Poor choices...sign Love or a slow rebuild. Who says we need Love? Aren't we flush at the 4 right now? Aren't the 5 and a shooter our most pressing needs? I'd have voted for option 3 given the chance - get a center and a shooter and win #18 next year.

by **dboss** Tue May 27, 2014 9:36 am

Could use an in between option here.

But definite no to the Kevin Love option.

Dboss

by **cowens/oldschool** Tue May 27, 2014 9:46 am

agreed Kevin Love is overated, Sullys game is close enough and I see him making a jump, as will KO, draft Smart, he could be a version of a young Dwayne Wade, and get us the best big at 17 and we'll be much better.

by **worcester** Tue May 27, 2014 10:43 am

Cow, I'm not seeing Marcus Smart as another Dwayne Wade. Are you saying he's a really dirty player?

by **cowens/oldschool** Tue May 27, 2014 10:59 am

worse offensively he can do things similar to Wade, wish we could grab Exum, but doubt he'll be there, if we get Smart might not be a bad thing? definitely has handle and can drive well and pass, can play either guard spot, seems like a good defender....and Wade is a dirty piece of crap, gets away with everything.

by **worcester** Tue May 27, 2014 11:10 am

Does that make Avery expendable? Besides a good center in a trade, I'd like to see us get a pure shooter at the 2 or 3. Maybe TJ Warren or Doug McDermott at the 3 and trade Jeff Green. I'm really liking McDermott's shot. I can see Rondo rushing up the court and passing back to a trailing McD for an almost sure (44.9%) three.

by **NYCelt** Tue May 27, 2014 12:17 pm

RosalieTCeltics wrote:I agree that a slow build is hard to swallow, BUT, if we fast forward too quickly, trade away our young guns, we will find ourselves in the same position as we are now in five years down the road. I feel developing slowly will be more rewarding. Just a thought.

Rosalie

Agree 100%.

by **Sam** Tue May 27, 2014 12:39 pm

I didn't pick either one because I don't believe this is the choice general managers (or whatever Danny is) make. The market and cap considerations often determines how quickly you strike. Last year was one in which the market and the draft were weak, and the Celtics were somewhat hamstrung by the cap.

This year, if Asik were available, that could get things rolling. If Love were available, the "quick' option would be gathering some steam. Get a pure shooter in the draft, and things are getting really interesting. Fill in some complementary pieces with medium-cost free agents, and the momentum is sweeping you along with it.
Sam

by **bobheckler** Tue May 27, 2014 12:58 pm

NYCelt wrote:
RosalieTCeltics wrote:I agree that a slow build is hard to swallow, BUT, if we fast forward too quickly, trade away our young guns, we will find ourselves in the same position as we are now in five years down the road. I feel developing slowly will be more rewarding. Just a thought.

Rosalie

Agree 100%.

NYCelt and Rosalie,

Isn't this pretty much the same argument many people were making in the summer of 2007 when Danny sent 24 year old Delonte West, 30 year old Wally and a #5 pick to Seattle for 32 year old Ray Allen? "We sold our future, we sold our future!" And when we sent 22 year old Al Jefferson, 21 year old Gerald Green, 24 year old Ryan Gomes and 21 year old Sebastian Telfair to Minny for 31 year old Kevin Garnett, weren't they saying that even more loudly? Weren't they saying about how we sold our future for a short window of opportunity?

The Atlanta Hawks had a young team that they put together, mostly with the draft. Everybody was oohing and ahhing about their potential in a few years after they gained some experience together. "Look how great they played the Celtics in 2008! They took them to 7 games!", is what they were saying. What happened to them? They lost Childress, Johnson, Bibby never achieved the levels that people thought he would. Whole lotta potential, but that's all. So much for banking on the future.

"Youth" does not equal victory. If we have to part with either Sully or Kelly in any deal we'll still have one of them and a ton of draft picks so we can refresh with youth as needed. What we want, what everybody wants, are players that when the opposing coach is trying to put together match ups comes up with no good options because our guy is the best and there's nothing he can do about it.

bob

.

by **NYCelt** Tue May 27, 2014 3:04 pm

bobheckler wrote:
NYCelt wrote:
RosalieTCeltics wrote:I agree that a slow build is hard to swallow, BUT, if we fast forward too quickly, trade away our young guns, we will find ourselves in the same position as we are now in five years down the road. I feel developing slowly will be more rewarding. Just a thought.

Rosalie

Agree 100%.

NYCelt and Rosalie,

Isn't this pretty much the same argument many people were making in the summer of 2007 when Danny sent 24 year old Delonte West, 30 year old Wally and a #5 pick to Seattle for 32 year old Ray Allen? "We sold our future, we sold our future!" And when we sent 22 year old Al Jefferson, 21 year old Gerald Green, 24 year old Ryan Gomes and 21 year old Sebastian Telfair to Minny for 31 year old Kevin Garnett, weren't they saying that even more loudly? Weren't they saying about how we sold our future for a short window of opportunity?

The Atlanta Hawks had a young team that they put together, mostly with the draft. Everybody was oohing and ahhing about their potential in a few years after they gained some experience together. "Look how great they played the Celtics in 2008! They took them to 7 games!", is what they were saying. What happened to them? They lost Childress, Johnson, Bibby never achieved the levels that people thought he would. Whole lotta potential, but that's all. So much for banking on the future.

"Youth" does not equal victory. If we have to part with either Sully or Kelly in any deal we'll still have one of them and a ton of draft picks so we can refresh with youth as needed. What we want, what everybody wants, are players that when the opposing coach is trying to put together match ups comes up with no good options because our guy is the best and there's nothing he can do about it.

bob

.

Bob,

Your Hawks argument could also apply to the Bulls, and yes, I see our current process as most likely mirroring those two.

I don't view what happened in '07 as something that can be repeated at any given time, and I don't think we have the tradeable parts needed to re-create that now. We have plenty of draft picks, but those alone aren't bringing us KG or Ray Allen. I will say that we did open a relatively short window. We traded a lot for one championship. Again, no complaints here, but you knew we weren't going to compete with that group for long. We can blame injuries or timing, but that's ignoring the fact our bench was weaker after '07-'08 and injuries can happen at any stage; we only won one before starting the decline back to where we are now.

In my opinion, a longer, slower rebuild can have us looking like San Antonio or Indiana as much as Atlanta, and that's the ideal. There is plenty of speculation about players like Gortat, Asik and Love, but is any of that realistic? Looking at it as obectively as possible, I think not. Youth may not equal immediate victory, it simply is a start with building blocks. Next time around I would rather not go for the quick, short window, but rather build something that's competitive for a long time. You simply can't create that overnight.

I would love to mirror San Antonio, and that won't happen with a quick fix. Reality dictates here; we just don't have anything to offer anyway. This simply won't be quick. Five years from now I would rather we looked like San Antonio or Indiana, acknowledging we could end up like Chicago or Atlanta if injuries strike, rather than have a team with one short shot at it before falling apart.

Regards

by **dboss** Tue May 27, 2014 6:59 pm

I really do not think this is a slow build. The Celtics have already acquired NBA quality starting talent.

If we believe in the words that came out of the mouth of Danny Ainge, our priority is to get a rim protector and a closer.

He said that getting a closer is very difficult and he is right about that.

I think the argument of squandering draft picks and assets for Kevin Love can only be understood in the context of team needs as described by Danny Ainge.

Love is a great scorer and rebounder but he is no go to guy and he is no rim protector. He is a sideshow... a distraction that would be an upgrade at the PF spot but would not address any of the positional needs that this team has.

I am not for a slow progression and that is why going after Love would impede the process.

I would rather see us go after Asik in a trade or better still Gortat in free agency. There are players in this draft between 6 and 17 that going to be ballers. It is up to DA to make the right choice.

We should be able to add a shooter and a PG or a solid PF prospect.

We still have plenty of assets to go after a center now.

The closer may be in this draft class.

dboss

by Sponsored content

Slow Build Might Trump Quick Fix

Slow Build or Quick Fix?

Slow Build Might Trump Quick Fix

Re: Slow Build Might Trump Quick Fix

Re: Slow Build Might Trump Quick Fix

Re: Slow Build Might Trump Quick Fix

Re: Slow Build Might Trump Quick Fix

Re: Slow Build Might Trump Quick Fix

Re: Slow Build Might Trump Quick Fix

Re: Slow Build Might Trump Quick Fix

Re: Slow Build Might Trump Quick Fix

Re: Slow Build Might Trump Quick Fix

Re: Slow Build Might Trump Quick Fix

Re: Slow Build Might Trump Quick Fix

Re: Slow Build Might Trump Quick Fix

Re: Slow Build Might Trump Quick Fix

Re: Slow Build Might Trump Quick Fix

Re: Slow Build Might Trump Quick Fix