We need to build for blowouts

[Hemingway]

This thread is a response to a notion I see floating around this board and in general celtics talk. It is the notion that we can fill the 7-10 spots on our roster with the players we already have. The idea is that players like Giddions, Walker and Pruitt will never develop if we never play them.

The flaw in this notion has to do with rest for our big 3, and perhaps Sheed as well. Last year when our starters went out, we lost leads. Doc was forced to try to keep 2 out of the 3 out there at all times and our guys logged a lot of minutes that would not have been necessary if we had a better bench. My point is that the extra few million it will cost to bring in another good vet will be mitigated or perhaps even nullified by having the big 3 play at say a 10% higher level a few years down the road due to rest. I'm not sure I am being clear here, but I hope you can follow me.

The other reason I find this notion of letting the likes of our youngsters play anywhere except the deep bench is that with blowout they will get the minutes they would have if we force feed them.

I think we need to gear our team to be able to blow 50-75% of the teams in the league out on a consistent basis. The easiest way I can see to do this would be to trade for Posey, give Marbury the money he wants and resign Baby. With taxs that is probably an extra 12 mill or so. But if we get a lot of blow outs and therefore rest for our big 3 and that rest makes the difference in one of them not getting injured(all hypothetical at this oint as there would be know way of knowing) you have your money right there.

The point is we should pony up ad buy the best bench that we can so we can wreck teams.

[joneb]

I agree with the premise that we should gear ourselves towards achieving blowouts. And I agree that we should put a few more bux on the table to try and lure Marbury back. And I'd love to see the oversized infant re-sign with us. But I can't get behind a deal to get Posey back. The price wasn't right last year, nor is it any better this year. Danny was smart to recognize that Posey was asking for too many years on his contract, and it didn't take long for NO to figure it out also. I think there are much better values out there to be had. I'd be much more inclined to go after somebody like Jamario Moon.

[ParticleMan]

I guess it's just different approaches to franchise building.

One way is the Miami approach a few years ago. Go all out, stack everything with overpriced vets, and win a title. Then spend the next 5 years (at least) rebuilding, causing your best player to seriously consider leaving. Luckily they actually won one, thanks to Salvatore. That could have easily not even happened. Maybe other teams have tried this (PHX, most notably) and failed. That's because in any 1 given season, so many things can go wrong. Like last year, I don't care what bench we had, with KG down we weren't winning a title, period.

The other approach is the Belichick approach. Build a core of quality players who will allow you to compete for a title every year. Then add complementary pieces, but ONLY if the price is right and financial flexibility is retained. In any one given year, your chances are not maximized. But over a 3-5 years span, this gives you the opportunity for several titles. If you want an NBA equivalent, it's the Spurs.

The second approach also allows you not to go thru long dry spells of not competing. If we load up on bad contracts just to make 1 run, then we've basically hamstrung any future flexibilty. And for what? So we can get a better BENCH player? A guy who's not even going to be in the game when it's decided? A guy who will play less minutes come playoff time anyway?

I love the idea of blowouts too but I don't want to have a bunch of big contracts nobody wants to do it. Not to mention, if we never develop the players Danny drafts, then how are we going to trade for anyone better? We all rave about Ainge's drafting, but it doesn't help if those guys are never given a chance. We saw that Baby and Powe were both valuable pieces. It's too bad Powe got hurt and Baby only agreed to a 2-yr deal. Otherwise we could be looking to trade BBD right now for some very nice piece. It shows that Danny can find some good players low in the draft. But these guys need PT to show what they can do, not necessarily to help us directly, but to be valuable for getting that piece to put us over the top.

[GreenDreamer]

This thread is a response to a notion I see floating around this board and in general celtics talk. It is the notion that we can fill the 7-10 spots on our roster with the players we already have. The idea is that players like Giddions, Walker and Pruitt will never develop if we never play them.

The flaw in this notion has to do with rest for our big 3, and perhaps Sheed as well. Last year when our starters went out, we lost leads. Doc was forced to try to keep 2 out of the 3 out there at all times and our guys logged a lot of minutes that would not have been necessary if we had a better bench. My point is that the extra few million it will cost to bring in another good vet will be mitigated or perhaps even nullified by having the big 3 play at say a 10% higher level a few years down the road due to rest. I'm not sure I am being clear here, but I hope you can follow me.

The other reason I find this notion of letting the likes of our youngsters play anywhere except the deep bench is that with blowout they will get the minutes they would have if we force feed them.

I think we need to gear our team to be able to blow 50-75% of the teams in the league out on a consistent basis. The easiest way I can see to do this would be to trade for Posey, give Marbury the money he wants and resign Baby. With taxs that is probably an extra 12 mill or so. But if we get a lot of blow outs and therefore rest for our big 3 and that rest makes the difference in one of them not getting injured(all hypothetical at this oint as there would be know way of knowing) you have your money right there.

The point is we should pony up ad buy the best bench that we can so we can wreck teams.

You just won't let go of your trifecta of bad ideas, will you?

1. Bring back Posey? Yuck.

2. Give marbury the money he wants? Double yuck.

3. Resign Big Baby - if we have to, and nothing BETTER comes along, but not a good first option.

What we have isn't going to cut it, and successful teams build for the PLAYOFFS. You know, that place where Marbury imploded? Where our bench players were simply awful. Big baby wasn't awful, he was really good... which is why it is best to get the most we can for him now to bolster up other areas. He is too good to be playing 12 minutes a game, which is what he's going to get here.

[celticfan42487]

Actually the Belichick approach is only a football or soccer way of building.

In basketball it's often called stuck in mediocrity.

[JHTruth]

Guys like Giddens and Walker are a very difficult call for teams such as these. Obviously our priority is to win as many games as possible without killing our big horses so they have gas for the playoffs.

I agree that maybe you don't trade for a Posey, but heck yeah, stockpile for the next couple of years. It's a huge risk on a contender to play the development game. You obviously can't go berzerk with signing anyone under the sun, but a few million dollars should not prevent the C's from getting a veteran player that could really help so guys like Walker and Giddens can play. These guys are second-year players. These types of guys simply cannot be trusted in big playoff games. Heck even Kobe was jacking up airballs when he first felt the playoff pressure.

I don't think the importance of seasoned vets when rings are on the line can be overstated. Guys like Powe and Baby will come up with big games here and there, but in crucial moments you need guys that have been there before. And that's where Walker and Giddens are not going to get it done, I'm sorry..

I remember how many teams we crushed in 2008 and how rested the big three were when the PO's came around. Compare with all the close games down the stretch last year and how tired our guys were..

[jfs1000d]

You don't develop to develop. the object is to win now, and win always.

Taking into the account of current construction of team, the bench has to be designed to be a bunch of role players and complimentary players.

This is why Scal is much better than we give him credit for. He sat out with a concussion for a couple of months, and when called upon, just was thrown in there and produced.

There is no time during the season for developmental prospects to play. They need to earn their time, and have to learn roles. I don't think blowouts help develop either way. Those games aren't played with the same intensity or the same risk.

the best way to develop a talent is to make them earn their role, and have them satisfy their role on the team. And, once that happens, when called upon to provide a bigger role (like BBD in the playoffs) are capable of doing it.

I think BBD is going to be a much better NBA player having gone through the 2 years like he did than if he went to a bad team and just played big minutes.

BBD has learned to become a role player, and has shown and ability to be productive in major minutes. That's why teams want him.

He is going to play in the NBA much longer than I would have anticipated because of this (I said 4 years when drafted, now probably 8-10 years before his weight becomes uncontrollable -- and it will when he gets into his 30s).

[ParticleMan]

Actually the Belichick approach is only a football or soccer way of building.

In basketball it's often called stuck in mediocrity.

tell that to the Spurs, who used exactly this formula to win 3 titles in 5 years and are a contender again this year.

[Hemingway]

This thread is a response to a notion I see floating around this board and in general celtics talk. It is the notion that we can fill the 7-10 spots on our roster with the players we already have. The idea is that players like Giddions, Walker and Pruitt will never develop if we never play them.

The flaw in this notion has to do with rest for our big 3, and perhaps Sheed as well. Last year when our starters went out, we lost leads. Doc was forced to try to keep 2 out of the 3 out there at all times and our guys logged a lot of minutes that would not have been necessary if we had a better bench. My point is that the extra few million it will cost to bring in another good vet will be mitigated or perhaps even nullified by having the big 3 play at say a 10% higher level a few years down the road due to rest. I'm not sure I am being clear here, but I hope you can follow me.

The other reason I find this notion of letting the likes of our youngsters play anywhere except the deep bench is that with blowout they will get the minutes they would have if we force feed them.

I think we need to gear our team to be able to blow 50-75% of the teams in the league out on a consistent basis. The easiest way I can see to do this would be to trade for Posey, give Marbury the money he wants and resign Baby. With taxs that is probably an extra 12 mill or so. But if we get a lot of blow outs and therefore rest for our big 3 and that rest makes the difference in one of them not getting injured(all hypothetical at this oint as there would be know way of knowing) you have your money right there.

The point is we should pony up ad buy the best bench that we can so we can wreck teams.

You just won't let go of your trifecta of bad ideas, will you?

1. Bring back Posey? Yuck.

2. Give marbury the money he wants? Double yuck.

3. Resign Big Baby - if we have to, and nothing BETTER comes along, but not a good first option.

What we have isn't going to cut it, and successful teams build for the PLAYOFFS. You know, that place where Marbury imploded? Where our bench players were simply awful. Big baby wasn't awful, he was really good... which is why it is best to get the most we can for him now to bolster up other areas. He is too good to be playing 12 minutes a game, which is what he's going to get here.

We are not going to get anything for Big Baby. This notion needs to stop because it clouds judgment on all other offseason moves. A SnT makes little sense because teams could just sign him outright and we can only move him for half the value meaning we can't take back anything but a small contract.

Posey would would do quite a lot to bring us another title.

[s1ickd]

Giving baby several million makes zero sense. Rasheed is here for 3 years. there is literally 10-12 mins a game off the bench available at the 4 spot. You can pick someone up for the vet min that can do that. it's certainly not worth 2.5-3 mil a year to fill that spot. if we sign a chris mihm esque backup center and have Scal play spot minutes at the 4, we'll be ok with the big men we have with Wallace as the primary backup.

James Posey is HIGHLY overrated at this juncture. He actually played the worst defense on Kobe between him, Ray, and Paul. Heres the thing with the backup wing situation... we have SO many young guys that can play the 2/3 spots (TA, Giddens, Walker, Pruitt) that the competition would naturally allow one of those guys to stand out and give us the mere 10 minutes we need to back up pierce. Hell even Scal can play a 2-4 mins a game at the 3.

Eddie House is Ray Allen's backup. He'll play 10-12 mins a game. Case closed.

We need a backup for Rondo. A solid one. There is a huge dropoff from Rondo to Pruitt. House cant play PG, he's a liability on BOTH offense AND defense.

basically, all we need to do is get a quality vet pg backup, and a semi stiff 7 footer a la PJ brown or POB.



Rondo - Vet PG - Pruitt
Allen - House - Pruitt
Pierce - TA/Giddens/Walker/Scal sometimes
KG - Wallace - Scal
Perk - Wallace - stiff 7 footer - leon when/if he comes back - - - - - Robert Swift lol

[Hemingway]

Giving baby several million makes zero sense. Rasheed is here for 3 years. there is literally 10-12 mins a game off the bench available at the 4 spot. l

If we have a great bench there will be more that 10-12 minutes a game for him. Think about it. If we don't have that drop off, as we have had for the last 2 years, than the starters wil be able to run up a lead, the rotation guys will be able to sustain it and in some games we can get a blow out and put the young guy in. If we go to the young guys right away than yes there is only 10-12 minutes avalible for the back up 4. The lead will be gone and KG or Sheed will need to come back in.

[akola]

I agree we need Posey back he was our best wing defender. Without him we do not have anyone to help Paul Pierce contain the likes of kobe and lebron. Maybe houston will be interested in a Big Baby for Shane Battier. Our team the way its constructed is not enough to get it done, the bench reeks.

[Bad-Thoma]

Actually the Belichick approach is only a football or soccer way of building.

In basketball it's often called stuck in mediocrity.

I vehemently disagree with this.

[Gomes3PC]

Actually the Belichick approach is only a football or soccer way of building.

In basketball it's often called stuck in mediocrity.

Well I agree with this. The NBA is all about finding 1 superstar and 1-2 other All Stars to pair with him, preferably a big man as your star. Football is totally different, with 22 starters and nobody ever on the field at all times. With just 8-10 guys playing each game, the value in the NBA is much more concentrated. In almost every scenario, in the NBA the team in a trade that gets the most talented player usually wins in the long run, except when Zach Randolph is involved.

I am not saying sell the farm for this year like Miami did or LA a few years back with Malone and GP, but this team has a very finite window, at most 2-3 years, as little as just 1. Much as I like Rondo and respect Pierce, when KG stops being KG and Jesus leaves, those two cannot carry us to a title. Given Boston's historical struggles to attract top talent, I also do not expect us to ever bring in a max contract guy. This may be our best chance to compete for a title in the foreseeable future, and we have to give every shot for the Big Three to get another chance.

As far as the general premise from the OP, I completely agree that blowouts are essential. Allen and Pierce were ridden into the ground last year. Hopefully now that we have Sheed and KG healthy, we will get more early leads and none of our top guys (save Rondo) will have to play 38+ MPG. Ultimately, the dream scenario is Giddens or Walker blossoms and becomes that quality 8th man off the bench to give PP/RA a rest, but I think we have the requisite talent right now to blow teams out and hold onto leads with our current top 7-8 rotation players.

[celticfan42487]

Actually the Belichick approach is only a football or soccer way of building.

In basketball it's often called stuck in mediocrity.

tell that to the Spurs, who used exactly this formula to win 3 titles in 5 years and are a contender again this year.

Sure, then they'll tell me they tanked and lucked out with a lottery pick for the best "PF" in the game. Then wrote the book for the NBA on foreign stars that no one rated highly but is now the standard for all NBA team.

[Brett43]

Maybe houston will be interested in a Big Baby for Shane Battier.

Wouldn't that be nice. Is Baby really that valuable that this is even a possibility? If so, Kudos to Danny.

[Fencer reregistered]

Even before his latest injury the Cs tried to limit KG to 33 minutes per game. Between his shoulder and his fouls, Perk is best at 30 or below. Sheed (or KG) could defend SF for 12 minutes a game and be better than any other backup SF the Cs have, and as Sheed ages I bet keeping him to 28 minutes a game or less would prove to be a good idea.

If I did the arithmetic correctly, that's 17 minutes per game for Davis, injuries and blowouts even excepted.

He's worth re-signing.

[No1CeltsFan]

As a fan, of course I agree w/ur premise. 100% I do. However, I get the Celtics not doing it. I mean they are in the luxury now more or less, so its 2$ to ever 1$.

As far as Marbury, I am shocked the Celtics don't think he's worth 2.5M$. I really am. Now way in hell can Lue hold Marbury's jock strap. With a full offseason and a full training camp with the team, Marbury would be great as a backup 1/2 guard.

I mean, he literally didn't even log 1 second on the court last year w/KG. He would of been so much better if KG was there. I figure atleast 1.5-2 apg that would of been. As it was Marbury surprised the hell out of me with how much of a good passer he was.

He also made Eddie House way better because House was able to play mainly at the 2 guard and run off screens, rather than handling the ball.

I would absolutely bring Marbury back and match anything up to 4M/4years for BBD