Could the Celtics beat a team of former Celtics?

For no particular reason, this question has been rolling around my brain. I know it's not fair, because you can trade 100 players and keep only 16. But I ask it anyway: Could the current Celtics beat a team of former Celtics?
Our former front line, Perk, KG and PP, continues to play, just not together or as well. But how would they fare against Tyler, Sully and Jeff? We could sub in Brandon, Kelly, Dwight, James, Vitor and Gerald W., but they could draw from Kris H., Sasha P, Gerald G., Nenad K., Glen D., even the Steamer.
Our starting backcourt, Rajon and Avery, versus Tony Allen and Courtney Lee? We have Marcus Smart; they'd have Nate Robinson. We have Phil P.;they'd had E'Twaun Moore. I'm sure I'm missing players who have come and gone, but I'm starting to think it would be a competitive matchup.
As a disclaimer, I realize we're rebuilding, aiming for say 2017, not 2014, and by then the equation will change. We have draft picks that may well pan out and they can't be added to the home team's advantage. Then again, if we asked the same question about other Celtics teams, say 2008, 1986, I think the answer would be a resounding yes: they'd trounce their former teammates. My guess is when we can say the same thing about a current Celtics team, we'll be poised for a playoff run. Hawk

I posed this question before the Rondo trade, but the answer is clearer now. IMO, a team of former Celtics still playing in the NBA would beat the current roster. Former active C's include Rondo, Tony Allen, Paul Pierce, Al Jefferson, Perk, Gerald Green, Courtney Lee, Nate, Robinson, many others.
I guess the real question is: With the benefit of hindsight, Would you trade Jefferson, Gerald Green and spare change for KG, and give up Jeff Green, Delonte West and Wally Szczberiak for Ray Allen?
I know it's spilled milk and I'm not crying, but I think those moves of 2007, driven by a desire to win quickly, may be guiding Danny now. With more patience then, we might have had a contending team in 2008 and every year since. With Perk and Al Jeff., our front line would have been spared the Mikki Moore, Rasheed Wallace, Sheldon Williams, Shaq O., Jermaine O., Darko Era.
Rondo and TA in the backcourt would have terrorized opponents. Two athletic Greens to back up Pierce or play shooting guard? And a window that even now would not be closing..? Would we have felt compelled to trade Pierce if he wasn't aging out at the same time as KG..?
The current strategy of trading players in their prime, first Rondo, next Green?, for draft picks may be an over-correction to a strategy that produced one title and half a decade of decline. Just hope we aren't leaning too far the other way - preparing for a run in 2045, as Shamrock quipped elsewhere. I'm still watching, still rooting, Go Celtics, but can't help wondering what the brain trust is thinking. Hawk.

hawksnestbeach wrote:   I posed this question before the Rondo trade, but the answer is clearer now. IMO, a team of former Celtics still playing in the NBA would beat the current roster. Former active C's include Rondo, Tony Allen, Paul Pierce, Al Jefferson, Perk, Gerald Green, Courtney Lee, Nate, Robinson, many others.
  I guess the real question is: With the benefit of hindsight, Would you trade Jefferson, Gerald Green and spare change for KG, and give up Jeff Green, Delonte West and Wally Szczberiak for Ray Allen?
  I know it's spilled milk and I'm not crying, but I think those moves of 2007, driven by a desire to win quickly, may be guiding Danny now. With more patience then, we might have had a contending team in 2008 and every year since. With Perk and Al Jeff., our front line would have been spared the Mikki Moore, Rasheed Wallace, Sheldon Williams, Shaq O., Jermaine O., Darko Era.
  Rondo and TA in the backcourt would have terrorized opponents. Two athletic Greens to back up Pierce or play shooting guard? And a window that even now would not be closing..? Would we have felt compelled to trade Pierce if he wasn't aging out at the same time as KG..?
  The current strategy of trading players in their prime, first Rondo, next Green?, for draft picks may be an over-correction to a strategy that produced one title and half a decade of decline. Just hope we aren't leaning too far the other way - preparing for a run in 2045, as Shamrock quipped elsewhere. I'm still watching, still rooting, Go Celtics, but can't help wondering what the brain trust is thinking. Hawk.
 

Hawk,

This is a debate that I would expect to see grow further as we try to assemble a competitive, playoff capable team over the next several seasons. There are certainly valid and compelling points to be made for both sides of the coin; the quick fix we did, versus building from what we had.

Regards

We won one and damn near had 2 more

No debate from me.

beat

beat wrote:We won one and damn near had 2 more

No debate from me.

beat

Yup, it was a great time to be a Celtics fan.

What's the old kid's saying? Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

True, It was great to win in 2008, like oxygen for throttled fan base. Ubuntu, Doc's vindication, Pierce's reward for all the lean years! But while we'll never know how we could have fared without the KG and RA deals, I'm not convinced we wouldn't have won at least once with Rondo, Pierce, Jefferson, Perk, T. Allen, two Greens and whatever else we might have attracted from 2007 to now. And that's a team that could still compete today, seven years later.
At the time of the big trade, I had deep doubts; later I was swept along by the wins and KG's incredible intensity. Then when we played Charlotte a few weeks ago and Jefferson ate up everyone except maybe Zeller, I got to rethinking: he used to be ours. If I were the GM who'd traded him away for a legend on the downside, paired the legend with an old sharpshooter that would jump ship a few years later, what lesson would I draw in 2014?
I might lean in the opposite direction, focusing so far ahead that even a 28-year-old passing phenom had to be unloaded, because by the time he'd be worth what he was asking, he'd be ready to retire. Hawk

Hawk,

I get your point.  This is one that's been driven home to me since we acquired KG by a friend in Minneapolis, who, ironically, is a Celtics fan and Wolves season ticket holder.

Me, I'm at peace with what we did in '08.  I couldn't be happier to have my team win it all again after so long.  I'm also open-minded enough to realize it was a terribly short term fix, that has led to us dumping one of the top point guards now active while still in his prime, and embarking on what will likely be a very long term path back to being a serious contender.

It is what it is, and there's no going back.  Still, students of the game will always wonder if we cost ourselves a shot at being relevant for a number of future years in order to win one quick one.  I suppose there are positives on both sides.  Still, I hope we use the lesson learned about short term results and try to build something a little longer lasting.

As a Celtic fan, I may have been spoiled by the '70's to mid '80's when I grew up.  I share your thoughts and what I interpret as your mixed feelings and I want something longer lasting than a "three year window."  I'm willing to be patient and realistic about where we are and how long it will take.

Regards

hawksnestbeach wrote:True, It was great to win in 2008, like oxygen for throttled fan base. Ubuntu, Doc's vindication, Pierce's reward for all the lean years! But while we'll never know how we could have fared without the KG and RA deals, I'm not convinced we wouldn't have won at least once with Rondo, Pierce, Jefferson, Perk, T. Allen, two Greens and whatever else we might have attracted from 2007 to now. And that's a team that could still compete today, seven years later.
  At the time of the big trade, I had deep doubts; later I was swept along by the wins and KG's incredible intensity. Then when we played Charlotte a few weeks ago and Jefferson ate up everyone except maybe Zeller, I got to rethinking: he used to be ours. If I were the GM who'd traded him away for a legend on the downside, paired the legend with an old sharpshooter that would jump ship a few years later, what lesson would I draw in 2014?
  I might lean in the opposite direction, focusing so far ahead that even a 28-year-old passing phenom had to be unloaded, because by the time he'd be worth what he was asking, he'd be ready to retire. Hawk



 

Hawk,

"Oxygen for the throttled fan".

What a great metaphor for what we were experiencing.



bob



.

Ask Charles Barkley, Patrick Ewing or Karl Malone what they would have done for a ring.

The Big 3 not only won a title (and nearly 2 or 3), but totally rejuvenated the Celtics franchise, fan base and got them back in the conversation. The Celtics were pretty much terrible for 20 years and were going absolutely nowhere.

I would do those deals to bring KG and Ray, 6 days a week and twice on Sundays.

hawksnestbeach wrote: I guess the real question is: With the benefit of hindsight, Would you trade Jefferson, Gerald Green and spare change for KG, and give up Jeff Green, Delonte West and Wally Szczberiak for Ray Allen?
 I know it's spilled milk and I'm not crying, but I think those moves of 2007, driven by a desire to win quickly, may be guiding Danny now. With more patience then, we might have had a contending team in 2008 and every year since.

I guess I have a hard time understanding this line of thinking, that it might have been better to keep the players they had because they might have been a better sustained contender than the Celtics had with KG, Pierce, and Ray.

Boston had a contending team for a solid five years. It seems indisputable to me that the "big three" version would be better than the "what if" version during those five years. The only possible question is whether the "what if" version would be better than what the Celtics actually had from 2012-13 on, but I think there's selective appraisal of those "what if" players and their ability to be central to a true contender.

Jeff Green has been on the Celtics since 2011, so he "cancels out" as part of the comparison.

Al Jefferson is a fine offensive player, but there is no indication that he could be a central cog on a championship team. KG brought championship defense and toughness to the Celtics. Jefferson played in one playoff series as a rookie with Boston, has played in only two playoff series since leaving Boston, and hasn't won any of them. Championships are won with defense, and defense isn't Big Al's forte.

Gerald Green was a tremendous athlete with a low basketball IQ and a sustained ability to drive Celtic coaches, teammates, and fans crazy. He bounced around the league, spent a couple of years playing overseas and in the D-league, then made tremendous strides under a run-and-gun system in Phoenix last year, but that was a full seven years after leaving Boston. There is no indication that he would've been a contributing part of a contending team in 2008 or any year until last year. No one would've put up with 2007-2013 Gerald Green with the expectation that they'd get 2014 Gerald Green, and you certainly can't apply 2014 Gerald Green to any earlier years.

Delonte West and Wally Szerbiak? West has been out of the league since 2012, Wally World left the NBA in 2009, and they were marginal players anyway. How would these guys have been part of any sustained contender longer than the "big three" Celtics when they were out of the league by the time the "big three" era closed?

As for anyone else you can think of, they may be good players, but there's no one out there on this "what if" team that represents the championship core. Take a guy like Tony Allen -- nice player (though I don't think he's any better than Avery Bradley, the guy he'd be displacing). If Memphis wins a title, it will be because they had guys like Tony Allen to complement Marc Gasol, Zach Randolph, and Mike Conley, but Tony Allen isn't one of the core guys that the Grizzlies are built around. That's how it is with these "what if" guys.

People tend to idealize draft picks as if they will fulfill the potential they can imagine, but once those draft picks become players and those players go up against real NBA competition, the reality sets in that most draft picks don't work out. This "what if" version of the Celtics is like those idealized draft picks, but if you could visit an alternate universe where Boston kept those guys, I'm confident you'd gain a greater appreciation for the five-year run as contenders and the title that the "big three" Celtics achieved.

Red Auerbach once said that a sports generation is about five years and it's getting shorter. He said that over 30 years ago.

DA should have kept his young assets to avoid a rebuild in a few years instead of jumping on the chance to have a window of a few years to contend?

True, there's no guarantee DA's move would have been successful but there was even less of a chance if he had held on to players like Jefferson, West, etc.

As someone pointed out West is out of the league. Jefferson was traded twice before finding his present home.

Unless you have the good luck to get a young great player--Bird, Johnson, Jordan, Olajuwon, Duncan-- around whom you can build and rebuild over the course of a decade, you have to jump on the chance to contend when the rare opportunity presents itself.

Good points all around and of course, we can't go back. My perspective is warped by living through the '60s, when Red always looked ahead and the team excelled year after year. I don't think that kind of domination is possible any more, but the Spurs have shown that a team can stay dangerous for a decade or longer by keeping key players and adding the youth, speed and muscle necessary to compete at the highest level.
In the '60s, we had Russell, a natural centerpiece around which to build and rebuild. In 2007, we had Pierce, a very good player near the end of his prime, but no Russell, and we built around him anyway, trading for two aging stars to put us over the top. This did pay off with one ring, then KG's knee blew out and Ray's ankles slowed him until he was a liability on defense. At the end of the big 3 era, Ray bolted, KG limped off and Pierce was traded to inaugurate the next rebuild.
At that point, a year and a half ago, we did have a 26-year-old star, the incomparable Rondo. He's no Russell; many would say he's no Pierce, but I'm not among them.
This time however, we're not rebuilding around our (recently) existing talent; we're starting anew. Rondo is gone and Green may be next. To me, this seems to be neither the strategy that worked in the '60s, nor the one that worked in a more limited way seven years ago.
I've questioned whether it was wise to trade Al Jefferson, Gerald Green & co. for KG, and Jeff Green & co. for Ray Allen (yes, we did eventually re-land Green, but only by giving up our center). I hear others saying it was worth it, and I can be persuaded that you have to strike when you get an opening. 2008 was a great year!
Six years later, however, we have a lackluster lineup and arguably no one to build around. We do have a stockpile of picks, and I'll cheer for any group in green. But I can't help but wonder what strategy we're employing now, and if it isn't an over-correction for the quick retooling of seven years ago. Hawk

During the Russell era the team made a grand total of one player for player trade: Mel Counts for Bailey Howell. Cousy, Ramsey, Russell, Heinshon, Sam Jones, KC Jones, Sanders and Havlicek played their entire careers here. Sharman played one year for another team that went defunct before he came to Boston.

One trade in 13 years and 8 HOF'ers here for the duration during those 13 years.

With free agency, there's no way that can happen today.

Today it's the past is history, the future's a mystery and the present is more and more a horizon that doesn't exceed more than about three years.

Sloopjohnb wrote:
Today it's the past is history, the future's a mystery and the present is more and more a horizon that doesn't exceed more than about three years.

Unless you're the San Antonio Spurs!

True. But the Spurs lucked into Tim Duncan by winning the lottery and they were in the lottery by the fluke of having their best player David Robinson out for the season.

This is not to denigrate the Spurs at all. They beautifully played the hand that good fortune dealt them.

But make no mistake. If they hadn't had the good fortune of getting Duncan, none of the good stuff that subsequently happened would have amounted to sh*t to a tree.

Sloopjohnb wrote:...none of the good stuff that subsequently happened would have amounted to sh*t to a tree.

Haven't heard that in a while!

I do like the Spurs management and front office. They have done a commendable job of staying competitive for a very long time. When you consider they're dealing with free agency and changing contractual rules, I think they're very much the operational equivalent of the '60s Celtics.

Absolutely.

To paraphrase Red Auerbach, the hardest thing is not getting to the top, it's staying there.

And to cheat death and stay there you have to be really excellent for a sustained period and have Dame Fortune lift you up to her fragrant bosom (thank you Mr Burns).

Sloopjohnb wrote:True.  But the Spurs lucked into Tim Duncan by winning the lottery and they were in the lottery by the fluke of having their best player David Robinson out for the season.

This is not to denigrate the Spurs at all.  They beautifully played the hand that good fortune dealt them.

But make no mistake.  If they hadn't had the good fortune of getting Duncan, none of the good stuff that subsequently happened would have amounted to sh*t to a tree.

Spot On.

You add Tim Duncan to a Celtics team with Ron Mercer, Chauncy Billups, Antoine Walker....then you bring in Paul Pierce a year later and things may well have been different.

Outside wrote:

hawksnestbeach wrote: I guess the real question is: With the benefit of hindsight, Would you trade Jefferson, Gerald Green and spare change for KG, and give up Jeff Green, Delonte West and Wally Szczberiak for Ray Allen?
 I know it's spilled milk and I'm not crying, but I think those moves of 2007, driven by a desire to win quickly, may be guiding Danny now. With more patience then, we might have had a contending team in 2008 and every year since.

I guess I have a hard time understanding this line of thinking, that it might have been better to keep the players they had because they might have been a better sustained contender than the Celtics had with KG, Pierce, and Ray.

Boston had a contending team for a solid five years. It seems indisputable to me that the "big three" version would be better than the "what if" version during those five years. The only possible question is whether the "what if" version would be better than what the Celtics actually had from 2012-13 on, but I think there's selective appraisal of those "what if" players and their ability to be central to a true contender.

Jeff Green has been on the Celtics since 2011, so he "cancels out" as part of the comparison.

Al Jefferson is a fine offensive player, but there is no indication that he could be a central cog on a championship team. KG brought championship defense and toughness to the Celtics. Jefferson played in one playoff series as a rookie with Boston, has played in only two playoff series since leaving Boston, and hasn't won any of them. Championships are won with defense, and defense isn't Big Al's forte.

Gerald Green was a tremendous athlete with a low basketball IQ and a sustained ability to drive Celtic coaches, teammates, and fans crazy. He bounced around the league, spent a couple of years playing overseas and in the D-league, then made tremendous strides under a run-and-gun system in Phoenix last year, but that was a full seven years after leaving Boston. There is no indication that he would've been a contributing part of a contending team in 2008 or any year until last year. No one would've put up with 2007-2013 Gerald Green with the expectation that they'd get 2014 Gerald Green, and you certainly can't apply 2014 Gerald Green to any earlier years.

Delonte West and Wally Szerbiak? West has been out of the league since 2012, Wally World left the NBA in 2009, and they were marginal players anyway. How would these guys have been part of any sustained contender longer than the "big three" Celtics when they were out of the league by the time the "big three" era closed?

As for anyone else you can think of, they may be good players, but there's no one out there on this "what if" team that represents the championship core. Take a guy like Tony Allen -- nice player (though I don't think he's any better than Avery Bradley, the guy he'd be displacing). If Memphis wins a title, it will be because they had guys like Tony Allen to complement Marc Gasol, Zach Randolph, and Mike Conley, but Tony Allen isn't one of the core guys that the Grizzlies are built around. That's how it is with these "what if" guys.

People tend to idealize draft picks as if they will fulfill the potential they can imagine, but once those draft picks become players and those players go up against real NBA competition, the reality sets in that most draft picks don't work out. This "what if" version of the Celtics is like those idealized draft picks, but if you could visit an alternate universe where Boston kept those guys, I'm confident you'd gain a greater appreciation for the five-year run as contenders and the title that the "big three" Celtics achieved.

Big Al can't play defense, what about Dirk or Chris Bosh? their defense is probably worse and they were key pieces on teams with rings, I think Big Al's offense and rebounding can contribute to a contending team. I think we drafted Jeff Green for the Sonics/Thunder that year as part of the package for Ray Allen, what if instead we draft Sams favorite that year Noah? Noah, Big Al and Perk would have given us 3 young studs at the 4-5, with Rondo and Pierce and Tony Allen on board I think any competent GM could figure out the rest.

Having said that I still loved that KG-Pierce led 08 team, so I'd be for the trade, shame that team only won one title, with a little luck/health that team was worthy of 2 or 3 rings.

After the Atlanta Hawks did so well against us in the 2008 playoffs I had a Hawk fan tell me how great they were going to be 5 years in the future, because they were all still so young then.

Then they lost Childress, then Horford became a chronic injury case, then Joe Johnson left and then Josh Smith. In other words, they didn't have the window of opportunity they thought they'd have.

Unless you put together a super team, like Danny did and Pat Riley did and have quality players flocking to you (e.g. Posey, House; Battier, Allen. And in previous generations Walton and Wedman), you can't count on "windows" and "organic growth". Look at Cleveland now. They are 18-12 despite having the best player on the planet and another all-league player in Love and another super young talent in Irving. They are in the 5th playoff slot, which means they wouldn't even have a home court series, and aren't even leading their division. The future is now, and even then sometimes not.

If it was easy to win a championship we'd all be NBA GMs.


bob


.