Sweeping aside the playoff naysayers

[humblebum]

Like I said though, the Celtics had Paul and that's the reason you get Ray. The draft pick in these trades is more or less a formality. Once the players connect and want to play together those two teams get together and try to make a deal work.

In your mind only. If we had gotten the #1 pick we would have traded for Love. You and I both know it. Weak sauce dude..

You can try and rewrite history but it's in the books now. Love gives the nod and the Cavs are the team with the first and if Lebron isn't heading home is Love going to Cleveland?

No. If the star he wanted to play with was in Utah the trade would've been for Exum.

[[EverGreen]]

There's certainly merit to the culture argument, but could we have just stayed with baby steps on that until next year?

We were 16-30 at one point, and could have ended up with a top 6-7 pick just by giving away guys who would have been gone in 36 games anyways. The player development and organizational benefits of that last half-season, and adding IT were all more than offset by the loss of value of that draft pick IMO, and especially so since (a) a lot of the guys we were developing are going to be with different teams soon, and (b) we could have almost certainly still traded for IT or an equivalent 6th man type this summer (even if it cost us another late 1st/high 2nd).

I understand where you are coming from, we all want to see talent on this roster. I admit I had mixed emotions when we started winning. A couple of points though:

(a) I agree that as much as half the roster could be on another team when we are ready to have a serious crack at the play-offs. What I'm talking about though is the culture that will be built by the core of players that we 'hope' will be around.
(b) IT has been a revelation. I'm not sure someone like him washes out so easily this summer and also I don't think that anyone, including Ainge thought he would impact the W/L tally so much this year.
(c) The East was a genuine race to the bottom. Do you think we could have maintained being that bad with the roster that we had? I don't think we could've managed that.
(d) Let's time travel back a year and slot player names in. Our run cost us Randle (pick 7) for Nurkic (pick 16). Of course I'd rather have Randle, but he has his flaws and then injured his leg and Nurkic might turn into something very nice. He's the type of high upside player that can be had ini the mid-first round. I wouldn't be losing sleep over the difference between these two.

[ryaningf]

... but this Celtics team made Cleveland work for everything.

Humble, you're letting your fandom cloud your judgment. We made Cleveland work? Really? You want a pat on the back for that? You want a good job, good effort, for that? Cleveland worked in the sense that they were big-brother-ing for 3 games (winning with ease and only playing hard maybe 10 minutes a game) and then in game 4 we punched them in the balls because we were tired of getting laughed at and that made them take off their flip flops and put on some proper basketball shoes so they could really kick our ass. And, even then, we didn't even make them have to play any harder than they had been playing, we just made them literally hit us in the face as they were big-brother-ing us.

LOL at taking solace is making a superior team work. That's like cracking back in heaven with a six pack and telling the other ghosts that hey at least I made that grizzly really work before it ate me alive. But yo, you got ate dog, circle of life and all that but getting ate ain't a cool way to die. You. Got. Ate. By. A. Bear. Getting swept in the first round similarly sucks ass.

As for the debate in whether getting IT now versus potentially later was worth the decline in picking let's say 9 versus 16...I can see it both ways and while I would have probably passed on the deal I don't fault Ainge for taking a chance. Here's why I can see it both ways: I think IT can be an AS and to give up a late first rounder and impacting your pick by 7 slots for an AS is a good value deal...so I think Ainge ultimately won the deal from a pure asset calculation and I think he's going to flip him for a better player eventually...at the same time, IT's impact is overstated...even though I think he can be an AS player, the AS contest is a popularity contest. When it comes to winning games in the playoffs, guys like IT are going to get big brother-ed into obscurity. The fact is, little guys like IT are available every year. In fact, Aaron Brooks is literally available every year and when you get right down to it he's going to have as much of an impact on W/Ls in the playoffs as IT would....

[jfs1000d]

We did a good job this year. The players and coaching staff should be left alone and charged with winning.

There is literally not a single deal made that impacts the future negatively. We cut salary, saved money, got rid of malcontents, and got a couple of pieces or the future.

[Slartibartfast]

We were 16-30 at one point, and could have ended up with a top 6-7 pick just by giving away guys who would have been gone in 36 games anyways.

I had doubts about that 6/7 pick as being the alternative scenario, but I think that's before I factored in other things. What's interesting is that Jerebko was more harmful to the tanking effort than we could have imagined. It only seemed like a salary cut at the time, but he ended up being a perfect fit with Thomas, Olynyk, and ultimately our system. He plays the position of Kelly and Jared(and some Jae), though, and this may have been a pointless exercise if he's elsewhere in a few months. Keeping Bass playing big minutes the whole season depressed our win total and I haven't even really had a tinge of doubt about that the whole time. The classic eye test fraud.

After the trade deadline, the raw +/- of our guys broke down like this:

Bradley: -20
Bass: -86
Turner: +23
IThomas: +115
Crowder: +77
Jerebko: +110
Olynyk: +141
Smart: +20
Zeller: -3

I don't think +/- is the be-all end all as starters go against starters and bench vs. bench, but you can see the ones that had the higher extremes amongst counterparts and maybe who was dragging the unit in either direction. We were technically on pace for 32 wins(8th pick) at the date before IT and Jonas, but I think they combined with Olynyk and Smart upping their games and an unsustainable amount of close wins to pump us to the playoffs.

I think Ainge's logic was sound, but JJ ended up being the perfect storm of a fit, and Crowder likely exceeded expectations in an expanded role. Maybe it'll have a nice unintended effect(read:recruiting)in the medium term, but I kinda doubt it.

I think Ainge wanted to make Brad Stevens happy. He gave him a roster that would make him the star - tons of hard-working roleplayers who wouldn't gripe when the boy genius played Tetris with the rotation.

That's the best explanation I can see for his willingness to stock up the team with low-ceiling prospects and established veterans.

So different from what he did with Jim O'Brien. Drafted his own guys. Traded OB's favorites E-Will and Battie for every coach's least favorite player Ricky Davis and the raw Chris Mihm.

Only to do an about-face once Doc came on board. Drafting a Doc guy in TA, trading Mihm for Payton and trading a first for Toine. And then again forestalling rebuilding in 2013 with JET/Lee/Green/Bass signings. Danny seems to place value in appeasing the coaches he likes.

[humblebum]

... but this Celtics team made Cleveland work for everything.

Humble, you're letting your fandom cloud your judgment. We made Cleveland work? Really? You want a pat on the back for that? You want a good job, good effort, for that? Cleveland worked in the sense that they were big-brother-ing for 3 games (winning with ease and only playing hard maybe 10 minutes a game) and then in game 4 we punched them in the balls because we were tired of getting laughed at and that made them take off their flip flops and put on some proper basketball shoes so they could really kick our ass. And, even then, we didn't even make them have to play any harder than they had been playing, we just made them literally hit us in the face as they were big-brother-ing us.

LOL at taking solace is making a superior team work. That's like cracking back in heaven with a six pack and telling the other ghosts that hey at least I made that grizzly really work before it ate me alive. But yo, you got ate dog, circle of life and all that but getting ate ain't a cool way to die. You. Got. Ate. By. A. Bear. Getting swept in the first round similarly sucks ass.

As for the debate in whether getting IT now versus potentially later was worth the decline in picking let's say 9 versus 16...I can see it both ways and while I would have probably passed on the deal I don't fault Ainge for taking a chance. Here's why I can see it both ways: I think IT can be an AS and to give up a late first rounder and impacting your pick by 7 slots for an AS is a good value deal...so I think Ainge ultimately won the deal from a pure asset calculation and I think he's going to flip him for a better player eventually...at the same time, IT's impact is overstated...even though I think he can be an AS player, the AS contest is a popularity contest. When it comes to winning games in the playoffs, guys like IT are going to get big brother-ed into obscurity. The fact is, little guys like IT are available every year. In fact, Aaron Brooks is literally available every year and when you get right down to it he's going to have as much of an impact on W/Ls in the playoffs as IT would....

I actually think your reaction and this post is more typical of the fan in you clouding your judgment. Youre overreacting to the outcome of a sweep and ignoring how hard Cleveland had to work in order to accomplish the sweep. Lebron and Kyrie played extremely hard and well in this series. Thompson fought hard for every offensive rebound. Their role players from Chump to Mozgov to Dell all played hard and tough.

The Celtics play a brand of basketball which forces the opponent to stay locked in an focused for 48 minutes and tip your hat to the Cavs but they did that for most of the time in this series.

An admirable effort but at the same time just an appalling display shooting the ball in this series which ultimately was the demise of this team. Again credit to the Cavs.

Its not the argument of tank vs not tank that is absurd... Its the panic and doomsday overreaction accompanying this run that is so absurd. Its like the difference between a B+ and a B... There is very little separation between the talents 6-10 and 10-16.

You can't trade up into the top tier of any draft... It doesn't happen unless youre dealing a star in return. But teams trade into the second tier all the time. So its really a false dichotomy. If the Celtics really love a player at 6 7 or 8 they have more than enough ammunition to do so.

[Captain_Caveman]

There's nothing close about a sweep.

We are Celtics fans, guys. Get it together.

[DarkAzcura]

... but this Celtics team made Cleveland work for everything.

Humble, you're letting your fandom cloud your judgment. We made Cleveland work? Really? You want a pat on the back for that? You want a good job, good effort, for that? Cleveland worked in the sense that they were big-brother-ing for 3 games (winning with ease and only playing hard maybe 10 minutes a game) and then in game 4 we punched them in the balls because we were tired of getting laughed at and that made them take off their flip flops and put on some proper basketball shoes so they could really kick our ass. And, even then, we didn't even make them have to play any harder than they had been playing, we just made them literally hit us in the face as they were big-brother-ing us.

LOL at taking solace is making a superior team work. That's like cracking back in heaven with a six pack and telling the other ghosts that hey at least I made that grizzly really work before it ate me alive. But yo, you got ate dog, circle of life and all that but getting ate ain't a cool way to die. You. Got. Ate. By. A. Bear. Getting swept in the first round similarly sucks ass.

As for the debate in whether getting IT now versus potentially later was worth the decline in picking let's say 9 versus 16...I can see it both ways and while I would have probably passed on the deal I don't fault Ainge for taking a chance. Here's why I can see it both ways: I think IT can be an AS and to give up a late first rounder and impacting your pick by 7 slots for an AS is a good value deal...so I think Ainge ultimately won the deal from a pure asset calculation and I think he's going to flip him for a better player eventually...at the same time, IT's impact is overstated...even though I think he can be an AS player, the AS contest is a popularity contest. When it comes to winning games in the playoffs, guys like IT are going to get big brother-ed into obscurity. The fact is, little guys like IT are available every year. In fact, Aaron Brooks is literally available every year and when you get right down to it he's going to have as much of an impact on W/Ls in the playoffs as IT would....

Well, I think it's a bit of an exaggeration that they only tried for 10 minutes a game. Their Big 3 averaged 40+ minutes. This wasn't easy for them. They swept, but it wasn't easy street. We banged them up a bit.

Anyway, your point about IT...is odd. You admit he may be an AS, but that is because of it is a popularity contest, but then say little guys like him are available every year. Which little guys, even if it is a popularity contest, are making the all star game or giving all star level production? Comparing IT to Aaron Brooks is a little...too much. One guy is a good offensive option that was constantly double teamed and performed through it. The other is a role player whose best year had him at around a ~54% TS. IT is much closer to Irving than he is to Brooks. 18-20 PPG players on 57-58% TS do not grow on trees, and they are certainly not available on a yearly basis.

[Slartibartfast]

The most painful irony in this whole series was when they asked Doug Collins in studio how important that 2012 playoff run was for the future of his Philly team.

[leper-con]

The most painful irony in this whole series was when they asked Doug Collins in studio how important that 2012 playoff run was for the future of his Philly team.

Can you expand on this?

[Slartibartfast]

The most painful irony in this whole series was when they asked Doug Collins in studio how important that 2012 playoff run was for the future of his Philly team.

Can you expand on this?

It was a cutaway interview in game 4. Hubie and Tirico were asking Collins about the game 4 his Sixers won against Miami in 2011. Collins expanded in his answer to include the next season's run that took them to a game 7 against Boston.

He talked about how important the playoff experience was to the growth of his team... a team that was soon after disbanded with Collins getting the boot and the biggest tank job in recent history commencing from its wreckage.

[Stadium5]

The most painful irony in this whole series was when they asked Doug Collins in studio how important that 2012 playoff run was for the future of his Philly team.

Can you expand on this?

It was a cutaway interview in game 4. Hubie and Tirico were asking Collins about the game 4 his Sixers won against Miami in 2011. Collins expanded in his answer to include the next season's run that took them to a game 7 against Boston.

He talked about how important the playoff experience was to the growth of his team... a team that was soon after disbanded with Collins getting the boot and the biggest tank job in recent history commencing from its wreckage.

Hahah too good

[ryaningf]

Anyway, your point about IT...is odd. You admit he may be an AS, but that is because of it is a popularity contest, but then say little guys like him are available every year. Which little guys, even if it is a popularity contest, are making the all star game or giving all star level production? Comparing IT to Aaron Brooks is a little...too much. One guy is a good offensive option that was constantly double teamed and performed through it. The other is a role player whose best year had him at around a ~54% TS. IT is much closer to Irving than he is to Brooks. 18-20 PPG players on 57-58% TS do not grow on trees, and they are certainly not available on a yearly basis.

Lou Williams was available in a salary dump 2 years ago and is a free agent this year. Aaron Brooks is available every year. Jeremy Lin is available. Need I go on? IT puts up great efficiency #s, no question, but in terms of impact, in terms of winning games in the playoffs, the class of "offense-oriented smallish guard" is always readily available.

The conflicted part for me is that IT is our best player and we got him for a late first and losing maybe 6 spots in the draft. Again, I think we won that trade but at what cost and for what exactly? We brought in a perennial 6th man of the year candidate and he immediately became our best player I mean that's both a good thing and a bad thing, right? That's what I'm saying, anytime you can acquire a guy who becomes your best player you should probably do that deal if the price is right but at the same time sometimes there are other considerations.

Irving and Thomas have similar #s but Irving can get his shot against double teams, shoot over guys for a 3s and finish at the rim against length. This is where analytics are only so helpful. When it becomes a one-possession game in the playoffs and you have the defense's entire attention, if you have 2 guys with similar efficiency #s you're going to want to go with the guy who's bigger, longer, and taller, right? I like IT but his limits were on display against the Cavs. IT is a great at getting #s over a regular season schedule (because of his effort) but in the playoffs weaknesses are magnified. He can swing a game or two here or there in the playoffs (like Lou Williams) but counting on him to lead you in the playoffs just isn't going to happen.

So we got our best player at a discount but our best player isn't good enough to prevent us from being swept in the playoffs--that's why I'm conflicted. If Danny can make moves that make IT our 3rd or 4th player by this time next year then it was worth it...if he can't then it wasn't. It's that simple.

[DarkAzcura]

Anyway, your point about IT...is odd. You admit he may be an AS, but that is because of it is a popularity contest, but then say little guys like him are available every year. Which little guys, even if it is a popularity contest, are making the all star game or giving all star level production? Comparing IT to Aaron Brooks is a little...too much. One guy is a good offensive option that was constantly double teamed and performed through it. The other is a role player whose best year had him at around a ~54% TS. IT is much closer to Irving than he is to Brooks. 18-20 PPG players on 57-58% TS do not grow on trees, and they are certainly not available on a yearly basis.

Lou Williams was available in a salary dump 2 years ago and is a free agent this year. Aaron Brooks is available every year. Jeremy Lin is available. Need I go on? IT puts up great efficiency #s, no question, but in terms of impact, in terms of winning games in the playoffs, the class of "offense-oriented smallish guard" is always readily available.

The conflicted part for me is that IT is our best player and we got him for a late first and losing maybe 6 spots in the draft. Again, I think we won that trade but at what cost and for what exactly? We brought in a perennial 6th man of the year candidate and he immediately became our best player I mean that's both a good thing and a bad thing, right? That's what I'm saying, anytime you can acquire a guy who becomes your best player you should probably do that deal if the price is right but at the same time sometimes there are other considerations.

Irving and Thomas have similar #s but Irving can get his shot against double teams, shoot over guys for a 3s and finish at the rim against length. This is where analytics are only so helpful. When it becomes a one-possession game in the playoffs and you have the defense's entire attention, if you have 2 guys with similar efficiency #s you're going to want to go with the guy who's bigger, longer, and taller, right? I like IT but his limits were on display against the Cavs. IT is a great at getting #s over a regular season schedule (because of his effort) but in the playoffs weaknesses are magnified. He can swing a game or two here or there in the playoffs (like Lou Williams) but counting on him to lead you in the playoffs just isn't going to happen.

So we got our best player at a discount but our best player isn't good enough to prevent us from being swept in the playoffs--that's why I'm conflicted. If Danny can make moves that make IT our 3rd or 4th player by this time next year then it was worth it...if he can't then it wasn't. It's that simple.

Take Irving in the end because he is taller, yes, I have no issue with that opinion. I'm not saying Thomas is better...only speaking about the players you compared Thomas to. The point is that IT isn't Lou Williams, Jeremy Lin, or Aaron Brooks. Those guys are not close to the level of player IT is. Like I said, he is much closer to Irving than he is those three. It's not like Irving was doing too hot when he was on his own team before this year. The Celtics have actually performed better with IT as the focal point than the Cavs did with Irving as the focal point. Obviously there are other factors like coaching, but I agree with Stevens on this point. Irving can make superhuman shots now and then, but those superhuman shots aren't what decide these games. The 50/50 balls and just general fundamental basketball play a larger factor than Irving being able to shoot a contested shot over two players when IT can't necessarily do the same.

The good thing with IT is that he can make up for the lack of length by getting to the FT line. He's a better finisher than Irving despite have less length and is one of the top 4th quarter scorers regardless of not being able to hit contested shots over 6'5" double teams. Ideally we shouldn't want guys shooting contested shots like that anyway if we were contending because we would have multiple offensive weapons. Also, you say analytics only go so far and that Irving can finish against length..these two are playing in the same league and conference. They play against the same length game in, game out, yet IT still finishes at a better rate, draws fouls at a better rate, and I believe takes more shots at the rim. It looks like IT should struggle against length, but he finds a way most of the time, and the numbers reflect that. Analytics are the reason we can evaluate IT properly instead of letting our biases against shorter players take over.

My point wasn't that IT > Irving. Only that IT is on a level several higher than guys like Brooks, Williams, Crawford, and Lin. That's not a fair comparison for IT, and imo, you are looking too far into his lack of height, which is common to be fair. I honestly don't care about IT's height. He gets the job done. That's what matters to me. His impact doesn't become artificially lower because of his height. He still averaged ~18 PPG on ~13.5 shots in the playoffs in 30 MPG with 7 APG, terrible game 3 and all, as the only legitimate offensive weapon on this team. It's even harder for him right now because of the lack of offensive options on this team. IT would play even better if there was another consistent offensive option for him to defer to.