Rasheed says he will sign with the Celtics.

[Joe Vancil]

Lurker,

I think they could still have been competitive had they developed Davis and Powe.  Add to that Perkins and Rondo, and you now have a core with which to attract a young star to replace the older stars.  And one assumes that Garnett, Allen, and Pierce don't all retire at the same time.

Obviously, moves like bringing in Marbury impact future viability negatively, but as they have no young option at point, that's more understandable (although still despicable).  But signing a veteran big man who is going to command minutes when you've got two young, developing big men on the bench who will lose those minutes is a tremendous mistake.

Ah, I misunderstood your point, Joe.  I agree that they had young players to develop but it appears they have given up on them to pursue the NOW.  I thought you meant they still had a chance to still attract players by winning for a couple years with the aging stars.  But IMO Boston has set themselves up for another long period of hoping for lottery winnings.

Actually, I mean that a winning culture breeds more winning.  If Boston had set themselves up by having a couple of young players who had been through the fire, along with a couple of stars on their way out, you've still got a better chance of attracting a Wade/James/Bosh than if you either just have the old stars or are a complete waste of a franchise (like New York).  But you need both - the chance to win now, and the role players who have been through it to sustain the winning tradition -to have a legit chance of getting a free agent steal.

[WayOutWest]

But IMO Boston has set themselves up for another long period of hoping for lottery winnings.

Does Duncan have a little brother?  Or maybe a son? 

[westkoast]

Lurker,

I think they could still have been competitive had they developed Davis and Powe.  Add to that Perkins and Rondo, and you now have a core with which to attract a young star to replace the older stars.  And one assumes that Garnett, Allen, and Pierce don't all retire at the same time.

Obviously, moves like bringing in Marbury impact future viability negatively, but as they have no young option at point, that's more understandable (although still despicable).  But signing a veteran big man who is going to command minutes when you've got two young, developing big men on the bench who will lose those minutes is a tremendous mistake.

Ah, I misunderstood your point, Joe.  I agree that they had young players to develop but it appears they have given up on them to pursue the NOW.  I thought you meant they still had a chance to still attract players by winning for a couple years with the aging stars.  But IMO Boston has set themselves up for another long period of hoping for lottery winnings.

Actually, I mean that a winning culture breeds more winning.  If Boston had set themselves up by having a couple of young players who had been through the fire, along with a couple of stars on their way out, you've still got a better chance of attracting a Wade/James/Bosh than if you either just have the old stars or are a complete waste of a franchise (like New York).  But you need both - the chance to win now, and the role players who have been through it to sustain the winning tradition -to have a legit chance of getting a free agent steal.

Good point.  You know even 'average' guys skills wise all the sudden are boosted up big time when they win a championship or multiple championship.  Sure Perkins is not a great talent but when it comes to attracting FAs to your squad I think players/agents look at championship experience along with the other typical factors.  If I am making the right assumption this is what you are saying about Powe and Davis as well right?  Keep em around to develop since they are young.  If you get more titles under your belt at the same time their stock shoots up big time and helps bring 'key' players in.

Rondo on the Clippers with 0 titles is nowhere near the same as Rondo on the Celtics with 1 or 2 titles, even if the numbers are identical.

[Derek Bodner]

I hate always preparing for the future, and damning the present to do so.  I love the moves boston has made in the past few years.  They went from doormat to winning a championship, and this move gets them closer to winning one or two more.

I'd rather improve my odds of winning a championship in the next 2 years rather than worry whether I'm a lottery team or a first round exit in 5.  Because, let's face it, when Pierce, Garnett and Allen age, they're not going to be contending even if they develop Powe and Davis.  They might help them reach .500, but is that the goal?

[Lurker]

I hate always preparing for the future, and damning the present to do so.  I love the moves boston has made in the past few years.  They went from doormat to winning a championship, and this move gets them closer to winning one or two more.

I'd rather improve my odds of winning a championship in the next 2 years rather than worry whether I'm a lottery team or a first round exit in 5.  Because, let's face it, when Pierce, Garnett and Allen age, they're not going to be contending even if they develop Powe and Davis.  They might help them reach .500, but is that the goal?

Simple question: Spurs when faced with 3 of top 6 players being over 30 was too old to compete.  Celtics have 4 of 6 key players over the age of 32 and they are contenders for 2-3 more years.  How does that compute?

[Derek Bodner]

I hate always preparing for the future, and damning the present to do so.  I love the moves boston has made in the past few years.  They went from doormat to winning a championship, and this move gets them closer to winning one or two more.

I'd rather improve my odds of winning a championship in the next 2 years rather than worry whether I'm a lottery team or a first round exit in 5.  Because, let's face it, when Pierce, Garnett and Allen age, they're not going to be contending even if they develop Powe and Davis.  They might help them reach .500, but is that the goal?

Simple question: Spurs when faced with 3 of top 6 players being over 30 was too old to compete.  Celtics have 4 of 6 key players over the age of 32 and they are contenders for 2-3 more years.  How does that compute?

Simple answer:
you never heard me say the Spurs are too old to compete.

[Lurker]

Simple question: Spurs when faced with 3 of top 6 players being over 30 was too old to compete.  Celtics have 4 of 6 key players over the age of 32 and they are contenders for 2-3 more years.  How does that compute?

Simple answer:
you never heard me say the Spurs are too old to compete.

It would be nice if the so-called pundits and experts were as forthcoming.

[WayOutWest]

Simple question: Spurs when faced with 3 of top 6 players being over 30 was too old to compete.  Celtics have 4 of 6 key players over the age of 32 and they are contenders for 2-3 more years.  How does that compute?

Simple answer:
you never heard me say the Spurs are too old to compete.

It would be nice if the so-called pundits and experts were as forthcoming.

I guess you and Bods speak on the phone every now and then?  Otherwise the "heard" me part of the post is BS!

[Joe Vancil]

I hate always preparing for the future, and damning the present to do so.  I love the moves boston has made in the past few years.  They went from doormat to winning a championship, and this move gets them closer to winning one or two more.

I'd rather improve my odds of winning a championship in the next 2 years rather than worry whether I'm a lottery team or a first round exit in 5.  Because, let's face it, when Pierce, Garnett and Allen age, they're not going to be contending even if they develop Powe and Davis.  They might help them reach .500, but is that the goal?

Actually, I don't consider Rasheed Wallace all that much of a step up from Powe *AND* Davis.  I don't think Boston added any more championships by signing Wallace - Boston lives or dies on the availability of Kevin Garnett.

Boston did the right thing by bringing in Garnett and Allen, but it needs to balance that action by developing its own young talent rather than bringing another older player who is going to hinder the development of the young bigs.  When Pierce, Garnett, and Allen age, chances are that they're not all leaving at the same time.  Development of young talent helps fill in the gaps, and provides a sense of hope for the future, rather than, "they're one and done" in the eyes of a free agent.  And, if a major free agent is needed, developed young talent is considered a good thing to get from the team giving up the star in a sign-and-trade.  (Unless, of course, you're Memphis.  But I digress.)

[westkoast]

I hate always preparing for the future, and damning the present to do so.  I love the moves boston has made in the past few years.  They went from doormat to winning a championship, and this move gets them closer to winning one or two more.

I'd rather improve my odds of winning a championship in the next 2 years rather than worry whether I'm a lottery team or a first round exit in 5.  Because, let's face it, when Pierce, Garnett and Allen age, they're not going to be contending even if they develop Powe and Davis.  They might help them reach .500, but is that the goal?

Actually, I don't consider Rasheed Wallace all that much of a step up from Powe *AND* Davis.  I don't think Boston added any more championships by signing Wallace - Boston lives or dies on the availability of Kevin Garnett.

Boston did the right thing by bringing in Garnett and Allen, but it needs to balance that action by developing its own young talent rather than bringing another older player who is going to hinder the development of the young bigs.  When Pierce, Garnett, and Allen age, chances are that they're not all leaving at the same time.  Development of young talent helps fill in the gaps, and provides a sense of hope for the future, rather than, "they're one and done" in the eyes of a free agent.  And, if a major free agent is needed, developed young talent is considered a good thing to get from the team giving up the star in a sign-and-trade.  (Unless, of course, you're Memphis.  But I digress.)

Not that I disagree with you and I am more or less trying to continue the debate.......

Wouldn't signing a player like Sheed, who is a big man who can shoot a jumper while playing tough D, help make Garnett more available by limiting his minutes and helping to preserve his energy?  They have a similar game.  The drop off between the two players is not quite as big as it would be had another person filled that role.  Especially Big Baby.  One could argue that Boston can rest and do more treatment to KG with out having to really re-work the offense or defensive assignments. 

[Lurker]

I hate always preparing for the future, and damning the present to do so.  I love the moves boston has made in the past few years.  They went from doormat to winning a championship, and this move gets them closer to winning one or two more.

I'd rather improve my odds of winning a championship in the next 2 years rather than worry whether I'm a lottery team or a first round exit in 5.  Because, let's face it, when Pierce, Garnett and Allen age, they're not going to be contending even if they develop Powe and Davis.  They might help them reach .500, but is that the goal?

Actually, I don't consider Rasheed Wallace all that much of a step up from Powe *AND* Davis.  I don't think Boston added any more championships by signing Wallace - Boston lives or dies on the availability of Kevin Garnett.

Boston did the right thing by bringing in Garnett and Allen, but it needs to balance that action by developing its own young talent rather than bringing another older player who is going to hinder the development of the young bigs.  When Pierce, Garnett, and Allen age, chances are that they're not all leaving at the same time.  Development of young talent helps fill in the gaps, and provides a sense of hope for the future, rather than, "they're one and done" in the eyes of a free agent.  And, if a major free agent is needed, developed young talent is considered a good thing to get from the team giving up the star in a sign-and-trade.  (Unless, of course, you're Memphis.  But I digress.)

Not that I disagree with you and I am more or less trying to continue the debate.......

Wouldn't signing a player like Sheed, who is a big man who can shoot a jumper while playing tough D, help make Garnett more available by limiting his minutes and helping to preserve his energy?  They have a similar game.  The drop off between the two players is not quite as big as it would be had another person filled that role.  Especially Big Baby.  One could argue that Boston can rest and do more treatment to KG with out having to really re-work the offense or defensive assignments. 

That is still short sighted...trying to stretch KG an extra year or two. 

The big 3 are 32, 33 and 34 years old.  KG has shown nagging injuries for BOTH years in Boston.  Two of them play the wing spots that are getting younger and quicker with each draft.  Boston had a couple young bigs in the pipeline that already have championship experience.  Those players could have taken more minutes from KG to save him without really hurting too much in quality of play.  I agree with Joe that a 36 year old Sheed isn't that much of an upgrade.  (Anyway if a 36 yo Shaq will fall flat why should a 36 yo Sheed shine?) 

Boston has struggled with the backups to the PG, SG & SF positions.  Posey & House played big in those roles for the title.  One's gone and for the other it was his last good season at age 32/33.  They tried Marbury & Mikki Moore last year.  Now they basically traded those young bigs for an older one.  And have NO young players in the pipeline except Rondo & Perkins.  They have to sign castoffs again for key role players.  Rondo was rumored on the block this year because of ego problems.  This is the NEED that should have been addressed with the MLE.

Why should Perkins stay at the end of his contract?  Why should any FA want to sign on for 5 years?  Hopefully there isn't a GM stupid enough to trade youth for any of the big 3.  And they should win enough to have no lottery picks for those couple years.

[Reality]

Why is Boston supposed to be worried about 5 years down the line?

I hate always preparing for the future, and damning the present to do so.  I love the moves boston has made in the past few years.  They went from doormat to winning a championship, and this move gets them closer to winning one or two more.

I'd rather improve my odds of winning a championship in the next 2 years rather than worry whether I'm a lottery team or a first round exit in 5.  Because, let's face it, when Pierce, Garnett and Allen age, they're not going to be contending even if they develop Powe and Davis.  They might help them reach .500, but is that the goal?

concur.

[Joe Vancil]

Why is Boston supposed to be worried about 5 years down the line?

Because the most important thing in attracting free agents is a culture of winning.  Having players on your team who are reasonably young, but still playoff-veterans, while maintaining a winning environment is exactly what you need to get a player like a Chris Paul or a Carmelo Anthony to bolt his team in favor of yours.

In my opinion, Rasheed Wallace does not put Boston any closer to a ring than the continued development of Davis and Powe does.  Now if we're talkiing that Boston were picking up a player who is arguably top 5 at his position to play behind one of my youngsters - like an older Jason Kidd - then I regard that as a good thing, but when it's a player who is going to take time away from your developing youngs, that's a problem.  And if it's a player who puts you over the top, I can agree (signing of both Payton and Malone by the Lakers, for example).

Now the idea of a "youth movement" - such as trading Garnett for Amare Stoudemire - *THAT*, I'm against.  That's sacrificing the present for the future, and it's why teams like Minnesota remain teams like Minnesota.  And you don't trade away "cornerstone of the franchise" players just because they get old, either (like if San An had traded David Robinson his last year, or the Lakers had traded away Kareem or Magic in their last years).  And dumping players for savings?  Kiss of death.  Phoenix selling draft picks and dumping players for cash qualifies, but so does Dallas dumping Michael Finley for luxury tax savings (anyone think Dallas would have collapsed as badly as they did in 2006 had Finley been there instead of Stackhouse?).

The message you want to send a superstar is this:  You want to play here, because 1) you'll win - just like we have for years, 2) you know what our organization is about, because we're never in constant upheaval, 3) we're looking to both right now and to the future, 4) you'll be loved and cherished by the community and the franchise until you decide you're done, and 5) the money is here right now and in the future - we'll spend to win if that's what it takes, rather than asking you to take a pay-cut to help us "remain competitive."

But back to the original point - by building up young assests, you've got sign-and-trade potential for the "second" superstar - the one you won't have the cap space to sign out-right.

Rasheed doesn't really enhance "win now," and he hurts "win 5 years from now."  That's why I consider his signing a mistake for Boston.

[westkoast]

Why is Boston supposed to be worried about 5 years down the line?

Because the most important thing in attracting free agents is a culture of winning.  Having players on your team who are reasonably young, but still playoff-veterans, while maintaining a winning environment is exactly what you need to get a player like a Chris Paul or a Carmelo Anthony to bolt his team in favor of yours.

In my opinion, Rasheed Wallace does not put Boston any closer to a ring than the continued development of Davis and Powe does.  Now if we're talkiing that Boston were picking up a player who is arguably top 5 at his position to play behind one of my youngsters - like an older Jason Kidd - then I regard that as a good thing, but when it's a player who is going to take time away from your developing youngs, that's a problem.  And if it's a player who puts you over the top, I can agree (signing of both Payton and Malone by the Lakers, for example).

Now the idea of a "youth movement" - such as trading Garnett for Amare Stoudemire - *THAT*, I'm against.  That's sacrificing the present for the future, and it's why teams like Minnesota remain teams like Minnesota.  And you don't trade away "cornerstone of the franchise" players just because they get old, either (like if San An had traded David Robinson his last year, or the Lakers had traded away Kareem or Magic in their last years).  And dumping players for savings?  Kiss of death.  Phoenix selling draft picks and dumping players for cash qualifies, but so does Dallas dumping Michael Finley for luxury tax savings (anyone think Dallas would have collapsed as badly as they did in 2006 had Finley been there instead of Stackhouse?).

The message you want to send a superstar is this:  You want to play here, because 1) you'll win - just like we have for years, 2) you know what our organization is about, because we're never in constant upheaval, 3) we're looking to both right now and to the future, 4) you'll be loved and cherished by the community and the franchise until you decide you're done, and 5) the money is here right now and in the future - we'll spend to win if that's what it takes, rather than asking you to take a pay-cut to help us "remain competitive."

But back to the original point - by building up young assests, you've got sign-and-trade potential for the "second" superstar - the one you won't have the cap space to sign out-right.

Rasheed doesn't really enhance "win now," and he hurts "win 5 years from now."  That's why I consider his signing a mistake for Boston.

Great post sir!

[westkoast]

That is still short sighted...trying to stretch KG an extra year or two.  

Stretching KG benefits the team as he's a top notch player and he can be the type of all-star that makes the call to entice players the squad needs to come to Boston.  This kind of plays into what Joe was saying above.  You want to be able to be able to pull players in.  Having a popular Vet with a ring can do that for you.

If KG calls you and tells you that he thinks if you join his team you will win a championship you are going to be more prone to believe him.  If Chris Bosh calls you from Toronto and tells you the same thing do you think you would feel the same way?

The big 3 are 32, 33 and 34 years old.  KG has shown nagging injuries for BOTH years in Boston.  Two of them play the wing spots that are getting younger and quicker with each draft.  Boston had a couple young bigs in the pipeline that already have championship experience.  Those players could have taken more minutes from KG to save him without really hurting too much in quality of play.  I agree with Joe that a 36 year old Sheed isn't that much of an upgrade.  (Anyway if a 36 yo Shaq will fall flat why should a 36 yo Sheed shine?) 

36 year old Shaq is being asked to be the #2 guy, play defense in the paint, REBOUND,  guard Dwight Howard specifically, and score points.

Rasheed Wallace is not being asked to be the #2 or #3 guy.  One would argue that he would be more like 5th behind Rondo/Allen/PP/KG.  There is a huge difference between being asked to be a force and #2 guy than it is to have him (Wallace) come off the bench.

The Celtics can win with out Sheed, they proved that two seasons ago.  The Cavs cannot win with out Shaq and in fact are expecting he will put them over the top.  I think that is a lot more to ask of a 36 year old who is twice as large, played more games, and had more injuries over the years.  Pretty much the Cavs are expecting and NEED Shaq to play at a very high level.  The Celtics are not asking nearly as much as Rasheed Wallace.   Based on that it's not a stretch to Say a 36 year old Sheed will do what he is asked and thrive in his role.

Boston has struggled with the backups to the PG, SG & SF positions.  Posey & House played big in those roles for the title.  One's gone and for the other it was his last good season at age 32/33.  They tried Marbury & Mikki Moore last year.  Now they basically traded those young bigs for an older one.  And have NO young players in the pipeline except Rondo & Perkins.  They have to sign castoffs again for key role players.  Rondo was rumored on the block this year because of ego problems.  This is the NEED that should have been addressed with the MLE.

I agree with this to a point.  Saying that some of their moves didn't work out last year is not exactly fair.  Not that I am taking up for Marbury (god no) or Mikki Moore (who I never liked really) but you are basing this off of......them being eliminated in 7 games in the second round?  With out KG?  By the team who went all the way to the finals?  Had KG been healthy it could have been a different story and the moves might look different.   I do agree that they have traded away talent for this 'win now' mentality but they put themselves in that predicimate going after Allen and KG in the first place don't ya think?  We knew this was coming.  Boston knew it was coming.  They wanted to milk their window as long as possible.  Danny Ainge is not exactly a genius at building teams.....

They do need to address the back up PG spot because Rondo is going to bolt as soon as he gets a chance.  Which probably will coincide with when one or two of the big 3 take off as well.

Why should Perkins stay at the end of his contract?  Why should any FA want to sign on for 5 years?  Hopefully there isn't a GM stupid enough to trade youth for any of the big 3.  And they should win enough to have no lottery picks for those couple years.

I can't really make an argument for Perkins staying other than he is loved in the city and his stock shot up big time being on this franchise.

And there is GMs stupid enough to trade youth for any of the big 3.  We normally refer to him as Steve Kerr.