2020-21 NBA Season Discussion

[Dupp]

Celtics situation is pretty wild. Brads still a good coach.



I do think ainge had to go he blew a great situation and doesn’t have a great rep among other gms. Not much goodwill there.

[Doctor MJ]

Read on Twitter

Wow. Moving Stevens to GM strikes me as a bizarre decision, guess we'll see how it turns out.

Can someone more informed perhaps try to explain a little why Ainge would step down? Is it just him growing ”bored” with the job or was there something more concrete that led to this decision?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Well, I think it's a natural time to turn the page. The Celtics have been thinking of themselves as contenders for a while, and they need to stop, and yet not re-build. So what does that mean? It needs to be figured out, and while I'm not saying Ainge wouldn't be the man for that job, in the abstract it makes sense to have a fresh start.

[parsnips33]

What do we think this means for Boston's plans for the summer? More likely to make a big trade? What direction will they go in now?

[Doctor MJ]

Celtics situation is pretty wild. Brads still a good coach.



I do think ainge had to go he blew a great situation and doesn’t have a great rep among other gms. Not much goodwill there.

Did he actually blow it? I'm not so sure. If feels like he blew it because the Celtics got far in the Eastern playoffs for several years in a row and could reasonably be claimed to be "one piece away", but it's not like Ainge wasn't trying to get that piece. Everything's different if AD wants to come to Boston.

I know people have taken issue with Ainge not going all in for the PG's of the world, but I don't really see any reason to think that adding another B-lister was the key to becoming the best team in the league. Sometimes you can be close to the cigar but without any realistic path for actually getting to it.

[falcolombardi]

Celtics situation is pretty wild. Brads still a good coach.



I do think ainge had to go he blew a great situation and doesn’t have a great rep among other gms. Not much goodwill there.

Did he actually blow it? I'm not so sure. If feels like he blew it because the Celtics got far in the Eastern playoffs for several years in a row and could reasonably be claimed to be "one piece away", but it's not like Ainge wasn't trying to get that piece. Everything's different if AD wants to come to Boston.

I know people have taken issue with Ainge not going all in for the PG's of the world, but I don't really see any reason to think that adding another B-lister was the key to becoming the best team in the league. Sometimes you can be close to the cigar but without any realistic path for actually getting to it.

what about harden?, they still had picks/brown and other non tatum pieces to beat brooklyn offer with

[Doctor MJ]

Celtics situation is pretty wild. Brads still a good coach.



I do think ainge had to go he blew a great situation and doesn’t have a great rep among other gms. Not much goodwill there.

Did he actually blow it? I'm not so sure. If feels like he blew it because the Celtics got far in the Eastern playoffs for several years in a row and could reasonably be claimed to be "one piece away", but it's not like Ainge wasn't trying to get that piece. Everything's different if AD wants to come to Boston.

I know people have taken issue with Ainge not going all in for the PG's of the world, but I don't really see any reason to think that adding another B-lister was the key to becoming the best team in the league. Sometimes you can be close to the cigar but without any realistic path for actually getting to it.

what about harden?, they still had picks/brown and other non tatum pieces to beat brooklyn offer with

Worth discussing to be sure. What's your understanding of how that would work?

My guess is that you'd be left with a team that was just Harden & Tatum. Tatum being an offensive alpha doesn't particularly benefit from Harden's presence, they'd be lacking the supporting talent you'd want, Harden would be 8 years older than Tatum and thus not really suited to build around in the same core, and Harden's already shown a willingness to leave scorched earth if he decides he doesn't want to play for you going forward which means it doesn't even make sense to say "Harden's the best player of the bunch so you get him at all costs". A Celtics trade for Harden seems like a recipe for not winning titles with Harden and to be left with nothing but Tatum soon enough, who would then surely be looking to get the hell out of Boston at the earliest convenience too.

It's worth noting that Brooklyn by comparison they had 2 stars of about the same age as Harden who are known to hang out together in their off-time with Harden, and that they didn't need to trade anyone of significance to their future in order to get him (they treated Lavert & Allen primarily as trade assets rather than core pieces the entire time).

In a nutshell, it just made more sense for everyone involved for Harden to go play for the Nets.

[Dupp]

Did he actually blow it? I'm not so sure. If feels like he blew it because the Celtics got far in the Eastern playoffs for several years in a row and could reasonably be claimed to be "one piece away", but it's not like Ainge wasn't trying to get that piece. Everything's different if AD wants to come to Boston.

I know people have taken issue with Ainge not going all in for the PG's of the world, but I don't really see any reason to think that adding another B-lister was the key to becoming the best team in the league. Sometimes you can be close to the cigar but without any realistic path for actually getting to it.

what about harden?, they still had picks/brown and other non tatum pieces to beat brooklyn offer with

Worth discussing to be sure. What's your understanding of how that would work?

My guess is that you'd be left with a team that was just Harden & Tatum. Tatum being an offensive alpha doesn't particularly benefit from Harden's presence, they'd be lacking the supporting talent you'd want, Harden would be 8 years older than Tatum and thus not really suited to build around in the same core, and Harden's already shown a willingness to leave scorched earth if he decides he doesn't want to play for you going forward which means it doesn't even make sense to say "Harden's the best player of the bunch so you get him at all costs". A Celtics trade for Harden seems like a recipe for not winning titles with Harden and to be left with nothing but Tatum soon enough, who would then surely be looking to get the hell out of Boston at the earliest convenience too.

It's worth noting that Brooklyn by comparison they had 2 stars of about the same age as Harden who are known to hang out together in their off-time with Harden, and that they didn't need to trade anyone of significance to their future in order to get him (they treated Lavert & Allen primarily as trade assets rather than core pieces the entire time).

In a nutshell, it just made more sense for everyone involved for Harden to go play for the Nets.

Ainge didn’t even try for harden, same as the rest of the multiple stars that have became available the last few years. There’s been ok reasons not to go after kawhi, pg, Davis but to not make a run at harden is inexcusable imo.

Nets are way better for harden but he’s under contract for two seasons. Isn’t that part of the gig to try land and convince these guys to stay? Houston got nothing for harden in the end. Jalen would have been a good starting point.

That’s just harden. AD said he’d go to Boston. Maybe true maybe not but ainge never really put out any serious offers for any of these guys. PG isn’t that great fine. Kawhi they could have rented a one year title fine also. Butler is another guy they didn’t try for.

They had all these future picks from their “war chest”. In the end they’ll end up with Tatum and brown. Which is good but they could have contended for titles if they went for it. Instead they stood pat and ainge leaked fake reports about trying to trade for certain guys after the fact.

They also lost Kyrie who might have stayed had they got AD or someone. Not the biggest Kyrie fan but he’s going pretty great right now on a loaded team.




Edit - is harden playing with kd any different than tatum. Both would work and James would make both better / their lives easier. ( I know KDs way better but similar fit issues)

[Doctor MJ]

Ainge didn’t even try for harden, same as the rest of the multiple stars that have became available the last few years. There’s been ok reasons not to go after kawhi, pg, Davis but to not make a run at harden is inexcusable imo.

Nets are way better for harden but he’s under contract for two seasons. Isn’t that part of the gig to try land and convince these guys to stay? Houston got nothing for harden in the end. Jalen would have been a good starting point.

That’s just harden. AD said he’d go to Boston. Maybe true maybe not but ainge never really put out any serious offers for any of these guys. PG isn’t that great fine. Kawhi they could have rented a one year title fine also. Butler is another guy they didn’t try for.

They had all these future picks from their “war chest”. In the end they’ll end up with Tatum and brown. Which is good but they could have contended for titles if they went for it. Instead they stood pat and ainge leaked fake reports about trying to trade for certain guys after the fact.

They also lost Kyrie who might have stayed had they got AD or someone. Not the biggest Kyrie fan but he’s going pretty great right now on a loaded team.




Edit - is harden playing with kd any different than tatum. Both would work and James would make both better / their lives easier. ( I know KDs way better but similar fit issues)

Well as I said, I think trading for Harden is a recipe for losing Tatum, Brown & Harden with nothing to show for it, so I understand not wanting to do it.

Re: Isn't part of the gig convincing these guys to say. Sure but you don't just trade for a guy without considering what it would take to keep him happy. I mean, the guy Ainge is contrasted with is Masai who is said to have gone "all in" on Kawhi, but was also just trying to get free from DeRozan's playoff inadequacy. It's different when your two best players are under 25 and you're considering getting rid of one of them for a much older dude who you've just seen treat his teammates like feces because he wants to go play with his superstar buddies.

Re: "AD said he'd got to Boston". If memory serves AD went from encouraging NO to get Randle to signing with Klutch in the span of one off-season. While I understand that AD wasn't actually traded to the Lakers for a while after that, I think it's clear AD made his choice.

Re: PG. I'd note that what OKC did was an absurd gamble that was always going to fail on the court and would have blown up in Presti's face with most players who demand out of their small market to go play in LA. It worked out only because PG is easily confused and thought Russell Westbrook was really cool.

Re: Butler. Frankly I think they probably should have gone for him, but let's note that Miami is currently in a really awkward position with him. You really going to give him a max contract now? With Butler there remains a very good chance things will blow up, and again, when you've got two star prospects, blowing that up for an older guy you can't really expect will lead you to a championship is a lot to ask.

Re: war chest. I do think Ainge and the NBA learned a valuable lesson here. You can't just hoard middling draft picks and expect to be able to use them to acquire Kevin Garnett. The "war chest" was always less valuable than people presumed. Now, that's a reason to not be so patient waiting for the best deal possible, which I think goes toward your point, but I don't necessarily thing Ainge did a bad job with the picks he had.

The Celtics in the 2010s have only had 3 Top 10 draft picks. All 3 of those guys are still on the roster (Smart, Brown, Tatum), all have been valuable deep in playoff runs, 2 made all-star and the other's a regular on All-D. This is better than most GMs do with their draft picks.

To your edit:

Difference between Tatum & Durant with Harden:

Durant is taller, less secure with his handle, and has always played a game that's more off-ball and more likely to get buckets off of others' assists.

Durant also is buddies with Harden and specifically wanted Harden to come to the team so had buy in right from the start to re-shape his game with Harden's presence. I don't know how Tatum would feel about Harden joining, but most young guys who have been the Man on a team aren't particularly keen to give up control to older ballhogs.

[Dr Positivity]

I think Ainge had a decent plan of getting Kyrie who is friends with everyone and then hoping that leads to a superteam, and then hoarding picks to trade for one, but Kyrie ended up being too toxic to last. The Celtics are still built solid going forward with Tatum and Brown.

[Texas Chuck]

I'm not a huge fan of playing what if on specific players because honestly we just don't know what was offered, when it was offered, and was truly an option or not. However, much like Presti when he still had KD/Westbrook/Harden/Ibaka as a core 23 and younger and didn't get aggressive with some of the extra picks/prospects had--other than the Chandler trade that got medically flagged which is one of the great what if's of the past decade--I do think we can criticize Ainge for his general lack of aggressiveness.

It's not that he just didn't land that big star other than Kyrie using his assets, but also how he hoarded lower level draft picks and then just kept making 3 or 4 or 5 selections every year and then putting them all on the roster while keeping previous low ceiling young guys on the roster. Back in the KG days, they always had veterans deep on their bench that you could pull out when someone was hurt or in foul trouble or ineffective. Now its guys just not ready to do anything and without the topside play to justify carrying all of them.

He certainly could have upgraded some spots and this was a team that was going to the conference finals pretty regularly. The right move here or there turns a couple of those into Finals trips and then who knows. Probably aren't a favorite against the West rep at any point but you could give yourself a chance.

Don't want to be too critical because by any measure he was one of the best executives in the league. But he had some hubris that I think let his teams down when they needed one more piece.

[Doctor MJ]

I think Ainge had a decent plan of getting Kyrie who is friends with everyone and then hoping that leads to a superteam, and then hoarding picks to trade for one, but Kyrie ended up being too toxic to last. The Celtics are still built solid going forward with Tatum and Brown.

Agree. I remember being very concerned with what Boston was going to do with Isaiah. I thought the Kyrie trade was brilliant. Had no idea how dysfunctional Kyrie's brain was at the time, and I think it's just one of those things where Kyrie ruined everything.

If Kyrie were reasonable, he'd have fit in with Boston.
If Kyrie fit in with Boston, other stars would have been enticed to join him.

It all makes sense until you see Kyrie insisting on guarding Giannis.

Tangent: The stomping of the Celtic logo is something that I'd consider to be a very overrated thing if it wasn't Kyrie who did it. I take a very low opinion of players who are catered to by an organization and then do damage to that organization out of pure selfishness and narcissistic insecurities. To then come back and metaphorically s**t on the organization who tried to give you everything you said you wanted makes me want to slap him.

[Doctor MJ]

I'm not a huge fan of playing what if on specific players because honestly we just don't know what was offered, when it was offered, and was truly an option or not. However, much like Presti when he still had KD/Westbrook/Harden/Ibaka as a core 23 and younger and didn't get aggressive with some of the extra picks/prospects had--other than the Chandler trade that got medically flagged which is one of the great what if's of the past decade--I do think we can criticize Ainge for his general lack of aggressiveness.

It's not that he just didn't land that big star other than Kyrie using his assets, but also how he hoarded lower level draft picks and then just kept making 3 or 4 or 5 selections every year and then putting them all on the roster while keeping previous low ceiling young guys on the roster. Back in the KG days, they always had veterans deep on their bench that you could pull out when someone was hurt or in foul trouble or ineffective. Now its guys just not ready to do anything and without the topside play to justify carrying all of them.

He certainly could have upgraded some spots and this was a team that was going to the conference finals pretty regularly. The right move here or there turns a couple of those into Finals trips and then who knows. Probably aren't a favorite against the West rep at any point but you could give yourself a chance.

Don't want to be too critical because by any measure he was one of the best executives in the league. But he had some hubris that I think let his teams down when they needed one more piece.

I think you've got a great point about the surplus of lower tier prospects. It doesn't make sense to do this while keeping these guys actually on roster. If you've got a serious approach to minor league development that could be different, but you can only work in so much developmental play time on a roster that's trying to compete for a title.

Re: going to the conference finals regularly. I think this is a case where apparent success gets in the way of high tier success. They were getting these deep playoff runs using approaches that could not be expected to be tweaked slightly in order to beat serious contenders. Had they been in the West getting torched in the first round each year there would have been more reasonable expectations and quite frankly there'd be more patience right now as their Big 2 remains so young.

[MartinToVaught]

Yeah, it's kind of weird how much people are downplaying the logo-stomping incident. It's not the logo that people are really upset about, it's Kyrie being a petulant diva taunting the franchise he screwed over and quit on while hiding on a mega-stacked team.

[CKRT]

I am not sure if anyone read what Ainge considered the nail in the coffin for him, but it is absolutely one of the funniest things I have read in a long time:

[Texas Chuck]

Re: going to the conference finals regularly. I think this is a case where apparent success gets in the way of high tier success. They were getting these deep playoff runs using approaches that could not be expected to be tweaked slightly in order to beat serious contenders. Had they been in the West getting torched in the first round each year there would have been more reasonable expectations and quite frankly there'd be more patience right now as their Big 2 remains so young.

This is an interesting point. I guess its ultimately the Lebron question. Because Lebron loomed over the East for over a decade as a one man roadblock. If we say though that most of Lebron's Finals teams were vulnerable just the East had maybe one semi-challenger at best each year, then I think as that best of the rest team I probably still go for it.

Because as you say if you were in the West and a first or 2nd round team every year then you probably do make more significant changes and there is absolutely a case to do the same when you can't get past Lebron(Kawhi stand-in for one year). But that comes with significant downside risk as well. Sometimes those changes really pay off--Dallas a good example in the West as the only team to break the Lakers/Spurs stranglehold. They made major changes from the Nash/Finley/Nellie teams leading up to 06 and made major changes again leading into 11. But there is also the Thunder, the Suns, the Kings, the Blazers, the Grizzlies, the Rockets who couldn't break through and made big changes that set them back considerably.

I'm a firm believer in that if you have a good team and you aren't clearly in major decline that you should almost always continue to try and make that team better. I'm totally cool with The Process and tanking, but not if I already have a very good team. Particularly if I think I have a star. The main argument against Boston trying to just add as opposed to re-rack completely is that they never had a top 5 or even top 10 player.

Will be interesting to see if Tatum continues his trajectory towards that and how that shapes the next generation of Celtics teams. Because I do think that's a key difference.

[GSP]

https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/nqw7g0/oc_since_2018_steph_currys_efg_drops_86_when/

this is interesting Stephs Efg drops 8.6% with Draymond off the floor since 2018. Steph has to do alot more on ball creation with Draymond sitting and i assume its a struggle without Iggy too. Steph stans always cry about Kerr not letting him handle the ball more but considering he isnt a great passer and a shaky ball handler it makes sense

Steph and Draymonds impact have been as closely tied together as any 2 players ever since Kerr got there makes it hard to say how good Steph is independently IMO. The team looked bad this season before Draymond got back too

[Texas Chuck]

I am not sure if anyone read what Ainge considered the nail in the coffin for him, but it is absolutely one of the funniest things I have read in a long time:

I hope this is a joke because you don't come out and dismiss players claims of racism but then ask them to go to war over the Irish guy on the floor. I mean read a room, Danny.

[falcolombardi]

I am not sure if anyone read what Ainge considered the nail in the coffin for him, but it is absolutely one of the funniest things I have read in a long time:

LMAO, no way haha

[Fadeaway_J]

I am not sure if anyone read what Ainge considered the nail in the coffin for him, but it is absolutely one of the funniest things I have read in a long time:

That is wild.

[parsnips33]

I'm pretty sure that was a fake ESPN post lmao