How Danny Ainge's Draft Pick Hoarding Can Pay off Again for Boston Celtics

beat,

I originally wanted to allow Paul Pierce to retire as a Celtic, but if the trade to the Nets only included KG, our return would have been much less.  Retaining Pierce may have contributed to more wins, but we would be stuck in the mediocrity trap; not bad enough to fall into the lottery and not good enough to truly contend.  I now see the logic in letting Pierce go, it is better for the Celtics in the long run.

Now we have let Rondo and Green go this year.  Again, I was reluctant to see Rondo and Green traded away.  I thought (along with many others) that a rebuild around them was a possibility.  When we couldn't get any top players to come here via a trade this summer, that window was closed.  Now that they are gone and the scab has healed over, I see why Ainge pulled the trigger on the Rondo and Green trades.

We wouldn't be able to get better if any of our free agents were allowed to walk away for no return.  Having some kind of return doesn't guarantee an improvement, but it gives us a better chance of having one.

gyso

Beat,

Yes, I would take the risk. You have to be willing to take some risks on the path to success. If you always play it safe, your returns are smaller. The Celtics took risks making those trades for Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett, correct? What if there was no title? Then those assets would have been squandered.

In my opinion, I'd have kept both and tried to package some of the rotation guys and draft picks into a trade for a major piece. But that's just me. I'd rather put my effort into making a run than wasting assets while still being one of the worst teams in the East.

Ray Allen took less money to join the Heat, so what can you really do there? In either case, the Celtics got their money's worth from Ray, if a title can be seen as a justifiable end to the means.

During the summer, Celtics management spoke of "fireworks," remember? Well, I didn't even see so much as a smoke signal emanating in the air. Empty messages with zero substance are worse in my opinion than just being honest from the jump about your intentions.



KJ

KJ

First fireworks require at least 2 teams and if no one want to deal where are you?

When we had Bird McHale and Parish? What happened after 86. 1 more trip to the finals and decent teams for a bit BUT?

No one is gonna take used part rotation players no matter how many you package? Again it would take a team that wants to deal and Ainge could not find a dancin partner. So you let Rondo walk and get nothing.............totally disagree, it was quite apparent he was gonna test free agency. and no way he would be worth top dollar here. IMHO

beat

KJ

Its not uncommon for fans to be unhappy about team leadership and direction. So what would you have done? In order to give meaning to your opinion what specific players, from all teams, would be involved. Be sure to take into consideration all salary ramifications etc.

Swish

Plus too add

RA left with no return for us, even though Ainge offered him more $$$$.

So what that shows is even with $$$ from us RR JG and other FA's might not want to come back regardless of the $$$$

At least we have something to show for it.

Think I'll live with DA's judgement on this.

beat

1 1/2 years into  a 3-5 year rebuild and Danny, at the end of this season, will already have 2 of the 4 key ingredients.  He will have cap space and he will have high-value, low cost draft picks by the dozen (literally, by the dozen).  The last 2 ingredients he needs is an all-star and well-developed, budding young players for trade or quality role players.  Player development is the coaching staff's job and he got probably the best coach for that.  Landing a former COY like Doc, when we sucked, was a coup by Danny and shouldn't be taken as the norm.   High quality veteran NBA coaches get to pick where they coach and lottery teams are not at the top of their short list.  As frustrating as Brad's learning curve is right now he is the right coach for THIS job right now because he is ALL about player development.  Sure, we want to win and to have a winning culture but chemistry and cohesion will bring that.  Look at Atlanta.  Teague is a player, Millsap is good too but they are a VERY good team this year and that is about cohesion.  Hard to cohese when you have to do a team roll call before every practice, but that is where this team is 1 1/2 years into a 3-5 year rebuild.  

As far as an all-star goes, it would have been nice if Sully didn't have that slump, it could have been him.  The trade deadline has NOT come and gone yet and there is this summer.

If Danny lands us an all-star, for the rest of this year or for next, and if Brad does his job this could turn quickly.  What was Cleveland last year?  Kylie Irving, that's it.  They are struggling now but you can't fault management or ownership for that, they have a roster that should make noise and it happened over a single summer.

Just like in the summer of 2007, just like it came together over a single summer with Pat Riley.  With Cleveland, they sucked for years, got multiple #1 picks and that is how they got their 3rd all-star.

Patience, grasshoppers, patience.



bob



.

Paul Pierce was a fine player. But his "go to" move was most decidedly iso ball. Then, when he struggled to slash as he used to, he began bombing more from the outside. Very understandable on his part. But is this the sort of influence we would have wanted a very experienced and credible veteran to represent as this team began to prepare for the future? I'm betting that moving Paul was not just a matter of money. There were stylistic considerations as well.

Sam

Beat,

That's perfectly fine for you to feel that way, and I can certainly understand why. In my opinion, the C's only needed a few more pieces. So on that end, I disagree with the notion that a full rebuild is a better option. Maybe if the team was much older I could consider that possibility as a much more sound option.


Swish,

I'll reference something I stated earlier about what I would do as of now:

k_j_88 wrote:
1. I'd hire some better scouts to help with the drafting process. What good is a boatload of draft picks if you have more misses than hits?

2. I'd look at hiring some assistants with more NBA experience than the current ones. Stevens still appears to be struggling and I think he needs a bit of guidance in order to learn how to lead this team better.

To add onto the first point, I don't think that building through the draft works unless you have a system in place like the Spurs do. Danny is average at best when it comes to drafting so... I have my doubts.

To add to the second point, the importance of this is to begin to establish a culture of winning. Right now, the team is in the same exact place it was last year. The quality of basketball has not improved, and I strongly disagree with Stevens' three-point shooting philosophy. Your offense ought to be centered around aggressive basketball where you are attacking the rim, not a lazy-assed offense where most of the team camps out beyond the arc waiting for the ball to jack up another three. It gets quite frustrating watching the same crap over and over. We are not witnessing a learning process!




KJ

"I don't think that building through the draft works unless you have a system in place like the Spurs do"

I really doubt that Ainge plans to rely on the draft. Many of the picks will probably be dealt in various packages.

NYCelt

Regarding your below comment

" I don't think the draft picks bring you back the same value as a young Al Jefferson, however, and we don't have one of those to trade "

Excellent point NYCelt. But that's as of today. Things could change drastically over the next few years.

swish

" I don't think the draft picks bring you back the same value as a young Al Jefferson, however, and we don't have one of those to trade "

The current rebuild may well be more difficult than the last one but that doesn't mean that Ainge's approach is fundamentally flawed.

The only alternative I've seen here is to hold on to Pierce, Garnett and Rondo and get good complementary players.  Of course, this doesn't address what the Celtics can offer to get these players to complement holdover stars on the downside of their careers or who apparently don't want to be here.

The Spurs went a full 7 years between their last title (2007) and their most recent one (2014), 2 years longer than the entire window of the Celtics' Big Three Era. It's kind of interesting to examine their success considering the fact that they've retained the same core and simply added to it. This shows me that you can keep a core around for a long time provided that the necessary adjustments are made.


KJ

NYCelt,

I believe we do have a "Jeffersonian" quality player (or better) on our roster right now.  I speak of Marcus Smart.  I think Smart is better in his rookie year than Big Al was in his third year.  There's nowhere to go but up with Smart's growth.  He already had the D, the attitude, and he is not afraid to take "the shot" when it has to be taken.  A little work on his shooting and a little experience in getting to know most of the other players in the NBA may round him out quite nicely.

As swish indicates, we've only just begun . . .

gyso

People keep harping on the Spurs and there appility to reload....last I knew Spurs had Tim Duncan
and have had him for how long...???

we didn't

Spurs situation would be extremely different if the fundamental wasn't there

beat

beat wrote:People keep harping on the Spurs and there appility to reload....last I knew  Spurs had Tim Duncan
and have had him for how long...???

we didn't

Spurs situation would be extremely different if the fundamental wasn't there

beat

agreed Duncan is as special as any player in history, he always plays bigger than his stats, Kawhi Leonard got MVP of the Finals last year, but Duncan's ability to still anchor that defense and control the lane defensively was the key to winning that series IMHO.

NYCelt,

I agree with you in that the Celtics re-build could take five years, but disagree that the Spurs rebuild was not all of 100% about getting Duncan.

Without getting Duncan would have made the Spurs rebuild much more difficult and much longer as well. Now, no one can say that they have not drafted very well since getting him because they have added many good players without being in the lottery every year, but I still think that Duncan was the centerpiece/cornerstone of their re-build.

Either way, I like the Celtics re-build direction at this time. The huge number of draft picks is likely to increase at or before the trade deadline, and then get used to either move up in this year's draft or to add some good talent through the sign and trade this summer. I predict that there will be three or four much more talented players on next year's roster with still a large number of picks left to work with in the following summers.

These three of four such players will be enough to get the Cs to the playoffs in 2015-16 and maybe even win a playoff series. This type of improvement will then bring in a free agent or two or allow another Garnett type deal which could then prove to make another very large difference in playoff performance.

NYCelt,

I also prefer to build around Smart, not trade him for a better guard.  This go-around we don't have an seasoned all-star to build around.  Maybe we start this rebuild around Smart and go from there.  The advantage of building around a younger group of players could be that it will last longer and it will not be affected by an older guy breaking down.

Also not addressing you but wanting to get my 2c in on the Spurs debate:

Wise drafting (1) and not over-paying for free agents (2) is important, but having a big rock in place to attach your anchor to (3) certainly helps.  Add to those the consistent great coaching (4) and I count four things that contributed to the Spurs success.  I would introduce one other factor, luck (5)

Luck that the ping pong balls dropped for them at the right time. Luck that a late 2nd round draft pick turned into an all-star. Luck that no major injuries derailed their train at an inopportune time. Luck that their previous rock went down with a correctable injury that resulted a bad season record that allowed those ping pong balls to drop in the first place.  

Even with model of "how it's done correctly" and some luck, the Spurs went seven years between their last two championships.  I hope that we can implement these five things and improve on that gap.  One last unmentioned thing that is in our favor is that the Boston Celtics is a large market team (6) with deeper pockets than the San Antonio Spurs.

6 > 5 (or should be if we use all 6)

gyso

Little Spur research... about luck

In 86-87 they went 28-54 under Bob Weise, and although 3 teams had worse records, (clips had only 12 wins) Spurs got the #1 pick and choose David Robinson.

Robinson would not play till 89-90 due to his military commitment and was 24 year old when he began his NBA career. In the next 2 seasons the Spurs won a total of 52 games and picked up #10 pick Willie Anderson in 88 and #3 pick Sean Elliott in 89.

Robinson played in 89-90 and in the Spurs began winning,,, a lot.

that is until 96-97 when the Admiral went down with an injury (played only 6 games) and the Spurs record dropped from 59 wins in 95-95 to 20 wins in 96-97, Pop came in part way into that season and he finished coaching them to a 17-42 record, Guiding them to the luck of getting the #1 pick.....and for that (injury)  that became Tim Duncan...( what did we get for Len Bias and Reggie Lewis) (sympathy cards?) So Pops has always had Duncan....and Duncan has always had Pops,

As a footnote the Spurs of that memorable 20 win season in 96-97 were led in scoring by the Highlite rerun film..Dom Wilkins with 18 PPG.

Since Duncan arrived on the scene Spurs added only 2 players of any consequence thru the draft
Manu in 99 with the 57th pick and Parker in 01 with the 26th pick.

Since picking Duncan they have made 37 total draft picks. 20 of these picks have played less than 30 NBA games, 15 have played NONE..... ZERO.

Had not Robinson got hurt and enabled them to be in a position to draft Duncan, the Spurs might be just another team.

Duncan for sure is 100% the reason for their continued success, and so is the luck factoring in his arrival there. And with the return of one of the most dominant centers of his time David Robinson, Duncan did not need to be the Big man in the middle either, they already had one.

Wise drafting by the Spurs?? Not much wiser than anyone else, but it might be said for getting Manu in the 50's but thats about it.

beat

Beat,

A team staying relevant for 15 years straight isn't a fluke. Takes good management to keep things going like that.



KJ

KJ

IF Duncan and Robinson were not there........

we can agree to disagree but they have been dealt 2 pretty good gifts during those 15 years

can you explain the rather poor drafts picks if they (management) are so good ?

beat

We'll see how relevant they are when Duncan retires

You wouldn't expect the Spurs to have an impressive draft record since they never picked early owing to their consistently superior regular seasons.  Taking Parker at 26th and Manu at 57th is pretty good.  Not many players of lasting consequence emerge from such late picks.

Yes, getting Duncan was luck but Spurs management has certainly done a great job with the lucky hand they were dealt.

Also San Antonio is also good for tax, weather and property reasons (I am guessing about the property but Texas is cheap in general?).

All the details matter.

beat wrote:Little Spur research... about luck

In 86-87 they went 28-54 under Bob Weise, and although 3 teams had worse records, (clips had only 12 wins) Spurs got the #1 pick and choose David Robinson.

Robinson would not play till 89-90 due to his military commitment and was 24 year old when he began his NBA career. In the next 2 seasons the Spurs won a total of 52 games and picked up #10 pick Willie Anderson in 88 and #3 pick Sean Elliott in 89.

Robinson played in 89-90 and in the Spurs began winning,,, a lot.

that is until 96-97 when the Admiral went down with an injury (played only 6 games) and the Spurs record dropped from 59 wins in 95-95 to 20 wins in 96-97, Pop came in part way into that season and he finished coaching them to a 17-42 record, Guiding them to the luck of getting the #1 pick.....and for that (injury)  that became Tim Duncan...( what did we get for Len Bias and Reggie Lewis) (sympathy cards?) So Pops has always had Duncan....and Duncan has always had Pops,

As a footnote the Spurs of that memorable 20 win season in 96-97 were led in scoring by the Highlite rerun film..Dom Wilkins with 18 PPG.

Since Duncan arrived on the scene Spurs added only 2 players of any consequence thru the draft
Manu in 99 with the 57th pick and Parker in 01 with the 26th pick.

Since picking Duncan they have made 37 total draft picks. 20 of these picks have played less than 30 NBA games, 15 have played NONE..... ZERO.

Had not Robinson got hurt and enabled them to be in a position to draft Duncan, the Spurs might be just another team.

Duncan for sure is 100% the reason for their continued success, and so is the luck factoring in his arrival there. And with the return of one of the most dominant centers of his time David Robinson, Duncan did not need to be the Big man in the middle either, they already had one.

Wise drafting by the Spurs?? Not much wiser than anyone else, but it might be said for getting Manu in the 50's but thats about it.

beat

Splitter and Kawhi Leonard are key pieces thru the draft too.