Is this franchise commited to winning a championship?

[return2glory]

Everyone is going to have an option and they will be different.

We can look at options of fans or we can look at facts without emotions being attached.

Facts say Wyc nor this franchise is committed to winning a title. The fact is 1 title since the 1986 season. Wyc wasn't the owner during that entire time of course. Wyc and the current owners bought the team 20 years ago.

Let's also look just a few months back, around the trade deadline. This team became a title contender in the off season as soon as we made the trade for Brogdon. We also got Gallo. Gallo got hurt and was out the whole year before the season got underway. Brogdon is injury prone and so is Rob. Al was getting up their in age and was being overplayed in the regular season because Rob was out to start the first half of the season. We were one rotation player away from being injured to have a non existent bench.

So, knowing all that, Brad and Wyc did what at the deadline? They got Muscala. Nothing against Mike Muscala because he is a good 11th or 12th man on a team. Is that the best they could do? Was that being committed to winning? Not at all.

So what happened in the playoffs?
Al started showing his age because he was overplayed. No surprise there.
Rob was jogging up and down the floor and couldn't guard anyone if he had to move laterally? No surprise there because he wasn't close to 100%.
Both Brown and Brogdon got hurt at the beginning of the Heat series. We had no one that could step up for us off the bench. No Surprise there.

So, no this franchise isn't committed to winning a title. They are committed to putting fans in the seats and making money. They are great at that.

[JimmyFromNz]

Why wouldn't they be? What is the evidence of the current ownership not? A simple variance in opinions from posters on what the right moves were this season is evidence? At risk of sounding ranty...

Look around the league, look at our roster, look at what we are spending financially comparatively to other teams...

We have two all nba players stacked with one of the deepest teams there is, a 57 win team that has increased its % incrementally, who also have had one of the largest winning % of any team in the league over the last 10 years. Including a Finals trip and reaching 5 of the last 7 eastern conference finals.

We haven't got to the peak of where we wanted to be, but that's simply life, results haven't gone our way we have tripped over ourselves a number of times. But the blueprint is clearly there, and consistently better than nearly any other team in the league.

Perspective can get away from us sometimes, and I'm guessing from a small market perspective (where this statement would actually be true), this would be a maddeningly entitled thread to even pose the question.

[lon3lytoaster]

Yes, I think Wyc is a fan overall. He’s not Thanks Dad at least. I think there’s been a lot of bad luck in his tenure.

With what he started with, through some miserable drafts, Danny turned the franchise around pretty quickly. From absolute squalor to a championship in what 4-5 years?

KG and Paul should have had one more. KG was an iron man and then popped a tire half way through a historic year and was never the same. What can you do. Even his first year in Boston he missed more games than you’d have expected of him.

Had one rebuilding year one season post-Doc and KG/Paul and had some fun teams with Thomas and had them as the odds on favorite to get Durant. It just didn’t happen.

Than Kyrie and Hayward. That dream ended six minutes into that season unfortunately, and Kyrie decided to get hurt. That was probably a title contender’s roster with Kyrie.

In the President Brad era, I think there have been some potentially missed opportunities but Udoka **** the franchise prob wasn’t on the docket for Wyc and Brad.

Lots of words, but I think other than 1-2 seasons Wyc has spent if they’ve shown potential. Just lots of bad luck and I think Danny absolutely being unwilling to give up anything in trades probably hurt us a couple of years.

This year was disappointing and the roster construction was good, but not great. Too many back court guys and not enough up front, but I don’t blame ownership saying they didn’t do enough. Only other thing they could have OK’d was maybe that TPE last summer before the Brogdon trade.

[Sunrise Above]

I believe they want to win, but they're misguided on what it will take.

I think promoting Joe to interim was a mistake, and making him head coach and giving him a multi-year contract were even bigger mistakes. He deserves every bit of level criticism he receives, but Brad had no business putting him in a situation like that. Brad sees himself as the "Hoosiers" underdog coach, so he's going to die on the hill of willing Mazzulla to glory.

Ultimately, this incredibly talented roster has come up short for years under three different coaches. It's the elephant in the room management doesn't seem to notice. I don't know if there's a magic coach who can fix the psychological/emotional/whatever that's going on with this team. We don't have prime Phil Jackson, Pop, Spo, Riley etc to know for sure.

The team started 2021-22 playing like crap, turned it around before giving up a 2-1 (almost 3-1) lead in the finals (drop coverage on Curry was super fun). The Ime situation notwithstanding, the 2022-23 team played well but regularly melted down, lost leads, lost to garbage teams multiple times, and we all saw this year's playoffs be a difficult, underachieving crawl for them. This group isn't working and the clock is ticking, but they can't blow it up because they have stars and a competitive team that sells tickets.

I know it's anecdotal but if there's a general sense from the fanbase and media that "something is not right" and wondering if ownership actually wants to win, all those people can't come to the same conclusion by chance. You probably shouldn't run it back. But they're going to and we'll be here this time next year, incredulous once again. Would love to be wrong about that.

[flintsky21]

They're commited no doubt, but I think they've too conventional or rigid in their ideas in roster construction and sometimes too stubborn to recognize that something isn't really working.

[Deivork]

I'm not so hardcore and I barely know the team's internal affairs, but from afar I've lost faith in this team's commitment to winning, so I voted no.

Either there's a masterplan behind that I don't know or the obvious says you don't keep Mazzula if you want to win next year. Of course he can improve, but he's just a rookie so very far from a championship coach.

Lots of rookie head coaches have won championships. Mazzulla isn't a rookie anymore, though - his rookie season has been completed. He'll be in year 2 next year.

You've got a point. Let me correct it by saying that I don't believe Mazzulla is the right person to lead us to a championship.

[Green89]

They give us every indication they are, aside from letting Brad hire Joe. You don't hire a rookie coach for a team that's prime for a title run. You just don't do that if you are fully seriois in winning a chip.

A rookie head coach has won the title 9 times.

Yes, let's talk about coaches in the 60s who led their teams to titles, because it's completely relevant now to today's players and coaching styles.

How about in the past 40 years there have only been 3:

Lue - who took on Kyrie and Lebron
Nurse - who took on Kawhi
Kerr - I think it's obvious who he took on

Not one of these three is a scenario similar to ours, with us not having a single caliber player that those teams did when the coach took over.

[Hal14]

They give us every indication they are, aside from letting Brad hire Joe. You don't hire a rookie coach for a team that's prime for a title run. You just don't do that if you are fully seriois in winning a chip.

A rookie head coach has won the title 9 times.

Yes, let's talk about coaches in the 60s who led their teams to titles, because it's completely relevant now to today's players and coaching styles.

How about in the past 40 years there have only been 3:

Lue - who took on Kyrie and Lebron
Nurse - who took on Kawhi
Kerr - I think it's obvious who he took on

Not one of these three is a scenario similar to ours, with us not having a single caliber player that those teams did when the coach took over.

Tatum is not a similar caliber player to Kawhi?

Also, Lue had LeBron and Kyrie. But that Cavs team was HEAVY underdogs to beat the 73-9 warriors that year.

And that 2015 warriors team was a team that only had 1 all-NBA player (we had 2 this year), and that was a team that had not yet won any titles together yet - they had not even been to an NBA finals yet (the celtics this year were coming off an NBA finals trip)

[Curmudgeon]

A rookie head coach has won the title 9 times.

Yes, let's talk about coaches in the 60s who led their teams to titles, because it's completely relevant now to today's players and coaching styles.

How about in the past 40 years there have only been 3:

Lue - who took on Kyrie and Lebron
Nurse - who took on Kawhi
Kerr - I think it's obvious who he took on

Not one of these three is a scenario similar to ours, with us not having a single caliber player that those teams did when the coach took over.

Tatum is not a similar caliber player to Kawhi?

No, he isn't. Kawhi is a far better decision maker. Of course, Tatum is more durable.

[JaMarco]

They are committed to a degree but I believe they are just as happy being good. That is where JB comes in. They let him walk away in FA the team takes a step back and may be a 5th or 6th seed. They supermax him (which seems to be the likely scenario) that seals their fate as a good team that won't ever win a title.

Neither of those are good outcomes

If they resign JB the team will do well in the regular season, will be in the contender discussion, may win a a round or 2 in the playoffs, which will at least give the illusion the team wants to win a title which will keep the casual fans happy.

If they don't resign JB that would prove the team wants to win a title?

[zoyathedestroya]

They should trade JB for Giannis. Flawed player for flawed player. Seems fair for both sides.

[JaMarco]

They should trade JB for Giannis. Flawed player for flawed player. Seems fair for both sides.

Terrible idea, would rather have Jokic.

[Green89]

Yes, let's talk about coaches in the 60s who led their teams to titles, because it's completely relevant now to today's players and coaching styles.

How about in the past 40 years there have only been 3:

Lue - who took on Kyrie and Lebron
Nurse - who took on Kawhi
Kerr - I think it's obvious who he took on

Not one of these three is a scenario similar to ours, with us not having a single caliber player that those teams did when the coach took over.

Tatum is not a similar caliber player to Kawhi?

No, he isn't. Kawhi is a far better decision maker. Of course, Tatum is more durable.

Tatum is definitely not on Kawhi's level. Skill set or IQ.

Tatum's wrist being in a brace all season is concerning. I feel it is the main reason he has been reluctant in some moments, to dunk and make hard drives to the rim. Not for it hurting while making the dunk/drive, but landing on it if he gets knocked to the ground.

[Marvel]

They give us every indication they are, aside from letting Brad hire Joe. You don't hire a rookie coach for a team that's prime for a title run. You just don't do that if you are fully seriois in winning a chip.

A rookie head coach has won the title 9 times.

Yes, let's talk about coaches in the 60s who led their teams to titles, because it's completely relevant now to today's players and coaching styles.

How about in the past 40 years there have only been 3:

Lue - who took on Kyrie and Lebron
Nurse - who took on Kawhi
Kerr - I think it's obvious who he took on

Not one of these three is a scenario similar to ours, with us not having a single caliber player that those teams did when the coach took over.

LMAO a Hal classic..."but in the 1800s there were blahblahblah"

[Hal14]

A rookie head coach has won the title 9 times.

Yes, let's talk about coaches in the 60s who led their teams to titles, because it's completely relevant now to today's players and coaching styles.

How about in the past 40 years there have only been 3:

Lue - who took on Kyrie and Lebron
Nurse - who took on Kawhi
Kerr - I think it's obvious who he took on

Not one of these three is a scenario similar to ours, with us not having a single caliber player that those teams did when the coach took over.

LMAO a Hal classic..."but in the 1800s there were blahblahblah"

Yikes, what a cringe attempt at trolling.

Dude quotes a post talking about Lue, Nurse and Kerr, but says we're talking about the 1800's. How embarrassing for you

You got anything insightful to add to the discussion, or just trolling?

[SichtingLives]

I think the Celtics have made it clear since the rebuild that they're running a business first and everything else is secondary. And now we're in an era where the actual basketball is arguably less of the product for modern fans than the headlines, gimmicks, controversies and side stories. "Rings" is a selling point you can only still promote in a select few cities (possibly Boston being the only one left because LA fans lol) that have long time diehard fans who remember or lived through the history. And they use that the same way a dealer plays an addict. Having perpetually competitive teams keeps a segment of the fanbase close which is good for the bottom line, but no I do not believe ownership is very concerned about a chip on a personal or business level.

[Marvel]

Yes, let's talk about coaches in the 60s who led their teams to titles, because it's completely relevant now to today's players and coaching styles.

How about in the past 40 years there have only been 3:

Lue - who took on Kyrie and Lebron
Nurse - who took on Kawhi
Kerr - I think it's obvious who he took on

Not one of these three is a scenario similar to ours, with us not having a single caliber player that those teams did when the coach took over.

LMAO a Hal classic..."but in the 1800s there were blahblahblah"

Yikes, what a cringe attempt at trolling.

Dude quotes a post talking about Lue, Nurse and Kerr, but says we're talking about the 1800's. How embarrassing for you

You got anything insightful to add to the discussion, or just trolling?

You're a revisionist history trooper bud. No shame in that just own it.

[Bar Fight]

https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/nba-teams-with-most-playoff-wins-since-2010

We're in the mix just about every year. Yet we're the only team in the top 5 without a title.

[Deivork]

Surprised by the poll results. I see a lot of faith that as many, we don't share.

[Green89]

Yes, let's talk about coaches in the 60s who led their teams to titles, because it's completely relevant now to today's players and coaching styles.

How about in the past 40 years there have only been 3:

Lue - who took on Kyrie and Lebron
Nurse - who took on Kawhi
Kerr - I think it's obvious who he took on

Not one of these three is a scenario similar to ours, with us not having a single caliber player that those teams did when the coach took over.

LMAO a Hal classic..."but in the 1800s there were blahblahblah"

Yikes, what a cringe attempt at trolling.

Dude quotes a post talking about Lue, Nurse and Kerr, but says we're talking about the 1800's. How embarrassing for you

You got anything insightful to add to the discussion, or just trolling?

You're arguing we were better with Joe than a more experienced coach and how another rookie coaches won titles. That alone should warrant all types of comebacks. It simply is preposterous to think that hiring Joe when your franchise was on the cusp if a title, is a good move.