Has Danny Ainge Been Predominantly Lucky Or Good In Rebuilding Celtics?

Sloop John,

This is your opening line > "So, it's the argument that the Celtics would have been contenders with the players they already had instead of bringing in KG, Allen, House, Posey, etc." I never used that as my premise. My point was Doc does not know how to coach and bring young players along.

In addition, Danny was brought in to win titles..................30 coaches in the league are brought in to do that...win titles. After the Pitino era, the Celtics were looking to add stability and a sense of positive direction to right the Good Ship Celtic. There is a time frame to rebuild from scratch. He was hired in 2003 as director of basketball operations and his drafting and trades should have been showing good results by 2006 which was not the case.

So who do you put the blame on ....I say Doc as he was directly involved as coach for per game strategy, use of player personnel, and overall basketball strategy i.e. emphasis placed on defense. The guy that made Doc was Tibbs the best defensive strategist in the league bar none ...then and now! Without Tibbs the Celtics do not win banner #17!

That is it for me and this tread post. There is nothing more to add to this subject.

112288

112288

"This is your opening line > "So, it's the argument that the Celtics would have been contenders with the players they already had instead of bringing in KG, Allen, House, Posey, etc." I never used that as my premise. My point was Doc does not know how to coach and bring young players along."

My bad. Thanks for clarifying that you were just saying that Doc is a bad coach for young players.

"There is a time frame to rebuild from scratch. He was hired in 2003 as director of basketball operations and his drafting and trades should have been showing good results by 2006 which was not the case."

DA when he came aboard said that he wanted to win a title in five years. He actually did that.

".30 coaches in the league are brought in to do that...win titles."

I was talking about GM's. And no I do not think that the primary goal of all the franchises in the NBA is to win titles. Some are content to have a product that is financially lucrative. The Clippers under Donald Sterling come to mind.

112288,

What is the source of a mandate that Danny should have won a title in three years?
When Danny came on board, he said they'd win a title in five years.  They won a title in five years.  He said nothing about three years, and I'm sure he mentioned the five-year window to ownership before he was hired.

Sam

Sam,

Please read this paragraph I wrote again please.

"In addition, Danny was brought in to win titles..................30 coaches in the league are brought in to do that...win titles. After the Pitino era, the Celtics were looking to add stability and a sense of positive direction to right the Good Ship Celtic. There is a time frame to rebuild from scratch. He was hired in 2003 as director of basketball operations and his drafting and trades should have been showing good results by 2006 which was not the case."

First I had to poke fun when people say Danny was brought in to win a title > "In addition, Danny was brought in to win titles..................30 coaches in the league are brought in to do that...win titles."  Sam anyone hired as a coach or GM is hired to hopefully win a title!   The phase is just so stupid to use regarding Danny or any team!

I never stated winning a title in 3 years. What I did say is > "the Celtics were looking to add stability and a sense of positive direction to right the Good Ship Celtic."  

What that means is STOP THE BLEEDING from the Pitino era.

I went on to say > "There is a time frame to rebuild from scratch."  I did not say win a title, I just said rebuild to get better.

I further went on to write > "He was hired in 2003 as director of basketball operations and his drafting and trades should have been showing good results by 2006 which was not the case."   Showing good results does not imply WINNING A TITLE.  It means having a winning record and making the playoffs and hopefully advancing.

In the end, I stated my opinion of Doc and many others here and elsewhere share my view as well so I rest my case.

IN THE END.............IT'S JUST ONE MAN'S OPINION!

YOU AND SALLY HAVE A GREAT EASTER!

112288

"What that means is STOP THE BLEEDING from the Pitino era."

The bleeding of the Pitino era ended almost instantly after he left. Jim O'Brien had the team post a .500 record in the 2nd half of that season and then next year they won 49 games and made the EC finals. The year after that thet won 44 games, a dream amount in the Pitino era.

They had become a middling playoff team with no real chance at a title. Then DA came aboard and was not satisfied to remain a team with early playoff exit as its ceiling. He wanted to win a title.

As we all know the team's record got worse and much worse before they once more became contenders. But DA wanted a title and not just a decent team that lost in the early rounds.

In some places what DA did is called "creative destruction."

112288 wrote:In addition, Danny was brought in to win titles..................30 coaches in the league are brought in to do that...win titles.   After the Pitino era, the Celtics were looking to add stability and a sense of positive direction to right the Good Ship Celtic.  There is a time frame to rebuild from scratch.  He was hired in 2003 as director of basketball operations and his drafting and trades should have been showing good results by 2006 which was not the case.

112288

Danny did say 5 years to a championship, not three.  This part (above) is where you stated the need to have to Celtics show "good results" after three.  Whatever "good results" means to you, the reality is that it didn't translate to winning teams.  I don't believe a winning record was part of the promise from Danny.  There was, however, "good results" in acquiring better assets in order to achieve the actual goal; contention, deep runs into the playoffs and a championship.  You know, "stability and a sense of positive direction to right the Good Ship Celtic".

This time around, I and many others believe it is still going to be a 5 year rebuild to contention.  It can be argued that that we are ahead of the curve, asset-wise, in relation to the last rebuild.  This time we may even show the "good results" of a winning record and some time in the playoffs.  I hope that is true.  It will make it a lot more fun for us fans.

That is no reason to disparage the first rebuild.  I wouldn't trade our "great results" from 2007-2012 for anything.  Certainly not for a bag full of "what ifs".

gyso

I too want a team that can win titles, not just get into the playoffs and has no shot at getting to Finals....are playoff appearances really that big an accomplishment? it wasn't to Danny and owners when he took over.

112288,

I read that paragraph correctly the first time around.  The missing ingredient is what the term "good results" means.  Leaving it open-ended, while simultaneously using the word "should," suggests that there is some very specific definition of "good results" that Danny should have attained after three years.  In fact, there was no three-year goal of which I'm aware.  After three years, Danny was three-fifths of the way through his commitment; and the fact that those three years produced enough assets to ripen into championship trade bait a year later and a championship itself in the fifth year suggests "good results" to me.

I hope you, Karen and the family had a great Easter too.  We'll miss you guys at our board get-together (intimate though it will be).

Sam