Here's my reaction to M's post. I wrote it before I read what B had to say:
I appreciate M's optimism, but I think the reality is that the Celtics traded one good contract (Ricky Davis) and one mid-level bad contract (Blount) for a much larger bad contract (Szczerbiak).
The only reason to make this trade is if you'd rather have Wally on the court than Davis and Blount. And let's say, for the sake of argument, that Wally is the upgrade that M thinks he'll be. That's not an unreasonable assumption. The question remains: what good does this minor upgrade do for the Celtics?
Even if Wally is a significant upgrade, the most that will happen is that the Celtics will end up with the #7 or #8 seed and will get wiped out in the first round. That is probably the worst result for the Celtics, in my opinion. Getting a low playoff seed is the difference between ending up with the 8th or 9th pick (with a lottery ball's chance at #1-3) or getting the 15th pick.
My view is that a smart NBA general manager will want his team to be in one of three situations:
1) A championship contender
2) A young team that is developing into a championship contender
3) A really bad team that will get high draft picks and has cap flexibility
All smart teams fit into one of these three categories. The Pistons are in #1, smart. The Bulls are in #2, smart. The Bobcats are in #3, smart.
The teams that are in bad shape are the ones that don't fit into any of these categories. They're teams that achieve mediocre success, with veteran players who will never contend for the title but yet eat up lots of cap space and assure that the team never gets a high lottery pick.
Right now the Celtics are one of those teams. I think some of the Celtics' young talent (like Al Jefferson) could eventually be part of a championship club. But the reality is that the team is saddled by big contracts (Pierce, LaFrentz, Wally) that eat up all your cap room, assure that the Celtics won't get high draft picks, and take minutes away from your young guys.
In my opinion, the Celtics have to make a choice. Are they going to compete for a championship with this group (good luck!), or are they going to rebuild? In my opinion their current directionless, halfway strategy ends up crippling the team long-term.
2 comments:
My god, brief and clear. What a post.
Sadly, I agree with R.M.
Regarding: "My reaction, and the State of the Celtics":
I think we can all agree that every GM, smart or stupid, wants his team to be in position #1 as outlined by R.M. -- a championship contender. And that #2, a young team developing into a contender, and #3, a bad team with draft picks and cap flexibility, are also desirable for various reasons. I think we can all agree that the C's don't fit category #3. #2 is another question. But let's take a step back for a moment and just examine the Wally trade.
With the Wally trade, what did the Celtics do? They got rid of an underachieving, overpaid big man in Blount. They got rid of a reasonably paid guard who we agreed was no better than a a "rotation player on a contender" in an earlier post this year. And in return, they received a wildy overpaid near All-Star quality small forward. Now, I'm not saying that Wally is an All Star or should be. But he's a much better player than Ricky, at least on the offensive end. He's averaging 20 points per game on 50% field goal shooting and 40% 3pt shooting. Ricky is averaging slightly less than 20 points per game on 46% and 30%. To put that in perspective, to score roughly the same amount of points, Ricky has taken 709 shots. Szczerbiak has taken 590.
Additionally, there is the issue of style of play. The top dog on the Celtics is Pierce, whose game is predicated on penetration, which both gets him to the line, and also gives him room to shoot jump shots. Wally will help open up the middle by drawing defenders out. He can also knock down jumpers when Pierce penetrates and kicks. Davis could do neither. He's mediocre to bad jump shooter whose game was the exact same as Pierce -- based on penetration.
Lastly, there's the issue of positions. Arguably the strongest positions on the Celtics were small forward (Pierce) followed by 2 guard (Ricky). That remains the case, with Pierce switching to 2, and Wally taking the SF position, and overall, your two best positions just got better. To strengthen those positions, you didn't give up any of your youth, but just an overpaid big man, who as I explained in earlier posts, was going to get more and more overpaid as time went along. And as I explained in other posts, in jettisoning Davis and Blount for Wally, you don't really impact the cap/luxury figures all that much -- it's just a $6m addition in one year, and $8m off the books the next.
The key here is that in making these trades, the Celtics haven't given up any of the young players they're hoping to develop. Perkins, Jefferson, West, and even Allen and Green are still around. And the best of those players play different positions from Pierce and Wally. The idea is that right now, you're building the foundation. If the young guys develop, within 2-3 years they can be part of a legitimate R.M. #2 -- a young team maturing into a contender. At that point, Pierce may be back to be a veteran presence, and Wally and Raef will be entering the last years of their contracts, and can either play that veteran role or be traded.
For the record, I agree with R.M. that the Bulls are in better shape than the Celtics. Their cap is in much better shape. They've got some great young players. And because they've been a much worse team than the Celtics over the last 8 years, they've had much higher draft picks than the Celtics. But those higher draft picks haven't translated into dramatically better talent until recently. And it's taken them a long time to develop into a "#2"team as R.M. calls them. For the record, the last time I checked the standings, they were basically in the same position as the Celtics. And in several key ways, they're in the same position metaphorically as well -- waiting for their youngsters to develop. If they turn into the players they hope they'll be, the Bulls will be very good, especially if they can add depth and complementary players through free agency. But that's what they thought when they drafted Chandler and Curry, too.
But my goal here isn't to take potshots at R.M. or the Bulls. I'm just pointing out that route #3, as we've discussed in the past, is not necessarily a ticket to #2 or #1. Just ask the turn of the century Bulls, or the Clippers or Warriors. Would it be nice if the C's had young talent and underpaid quality veterans? Or young talent and lots of cap room? Yes. But if the young guys develop, they may have a #2 type team in a couple of years. Just like the Bulls.
Post a Comment