July 31, 200719 yr I think the deal works well for both teams...but no way Boston only wins 44 games...are you kidding me? Look at the eastern conference...no team in the conference will be able to match the trio of Allen, Pierce and Garnett. These guys aren't over the hill...they've still got some game left. Plus, you have to expect that the very real possibility of an NBA Finals berth will inspire them to play better than the hopeloss situations they were in last year. The Celtics should at least win 50 games and the Atlantic Division...and along with Detriot, Cleveland and maybe Miami (if Shaq can stay healthy and has anything left and Wade stays healthy) and Chicago (if they continue to mature), should be a legit threat to win the conference. Lebron basically carried the Cavs this year...Shaq and D-Wade two years ago...no reason to think KG, Pierce and Allen can't do it in the same weak conference. Just going on record ( ) with my prediction that the C's won't win 50 games. Additionally, these "not over the hill" guys have played 11 (Allen), 12 (Garnett) and 9 (Pierce) years in the NBA with a combined 121 playoff games. That is an average of about 3.7 playoff games per season per player. Not exactly awe-inspiring. They have, at best, a 2 or 3 year window before these guys start (keep?) showing signs of aging. 30 - 32 is starting down the hill in the NBA.
July 31, 200719 yr 5Wide, I love Bill Simmons too, but he is the biggest Celtic Homer in America. Come on, he loves him some Celtics.
July 31, 200719 yr 5Wide, I love Bill Simmons too, but he is the biggest Celtic Homer in America. Come on, he loves him some Celtics. I know he's a Celtic/Patriot guy, but it was still a good article. My favorite was his poker analogy...if you read it. If not, you should just for that part. :thumb:
July 31, 200719 yr Just going on record ( ) with my prediction that the C's won't win 50 games. Additionally, these "not over the hill" guys have played 11 (Allen), 12 (Garnett) and 9 (Pierce) years in the NBA with a combined 121 playoff games. That is an average of about 3.7 playoff games per season per player. Not exactly awe-inspiring. They have, at best, a 2 or 3 year window before these guys start (keep?) showing signs of aging. 30 - 32 is starting down the hill in the NBA. The playoff stats are meaningless...with the exception of KG's brief run with Cassell and Sprewell, none of the three have heard had any great support...and KG made it to the conference finals when he had help. Pierce and Allen have also carried their teams on overachieving playoff runs... I won't argue that they have some miles on their legs, but they are far from done. Plus, you can't deny that the renewed hope of contending can rejuvinate a player. And, don't discount the effect of having help will have for these guys...now that they don't have to carry a team, the physical toll should be lightened. I can easily see this setting the Celtics with a 2-4 year window in which they will be strong Eastern Conference contenders, and with some luck, maybe more... Garnett has shown little, if any, signs of decline. His 07 stats were basically the same as always (above his career average, slightly below his career highs)...his assists were down, which is understandable. Put him on a team with a real chance to contend and you'll get a more inspired performance. His play won't drop...if anything, his stats will go up next year. Pierce, like KG, has shown little, if any, signs of decline. Same stats (slightly below career highs, above career average), but right in line with what you'd expect. He's 29...he's far from done and the addition of Allen and KG will lead to a more inpsired effort. Ray Allen, at 32, is the oldest, and most likely to be on the verge of showing a real decline, but even his numbers were pretty much what you'd expect. His stats are showing no signs of dropping...last season was his career high in PPG at 26.4. Sorry, but I just don't see these guys as being ready for a sharp dropoff...even with a slight decline, which isn't a certainty, they will form one of the best trios in the league. Of the three, Allen would seem the most likely candidate for a drop, which again, isn't as big as it might sound. He'll be the third best of the three and he'll have a more specialized role (shooting, stretching defenses, scoring), while Pierce and KG will be the more versatile, all-around guys who set things up for Allen, who in turn makes things easier for them by making teams pay... Sorry, just don't see how this is a bad move in any way, shape or form from a Celtics perspective. I guess we'll agree to disagree.
July 31, 200719 yr I certainly think they could have 2 or 3 good years (45-49 wins) before anything drops off dramatically, but that roster now has ZERO depth, so you better hope they avoid any type of nagging injuries. You are talking about Rondo, those three, and a guy coming off of knee surgery. No bench to be heard of. To me they are paper thin, and over 82 games, that is no good. I think scoffing at this group's lack of playoff success is a bit short-sighted. This is the NBA, teams don't need a ton of quality to make runs (see Toronto a couple of years ago) (Iverson's Sixers certainly weren't loaded with stars), and goodness knows the T-Wolves had quite a few teams with three really nice pieces (Sam, Latrell, Wally, etc.). Maybe they all of a sudden are able to man-up and go deep...maybe not. I think C's had to try something, and getting maybe the most versatile player of his generation can't be a bad thing. I'm simply saying that the expectations (IMHO) are unrealistic.
July 31, 200719 yr I certainly think they could have 2 or 3 good years (45-49 wins) before anything drops off dramatically, but that roster now has ZERO depth, so you better hope they avoid any type of nagging injuries. You are talking about Rondo, those three, and a guy coming off of knee surgery. No bench to be heard of. To me they are paper thin, and over 82 games, that is no good. I think scoffing at this group's lack of playoff success is a bit short-sighted. This is the NBA, teams don't need a ton of quality to make runs (see Toronto a couple of years ago) (Iverson's Sixers certainly weren't loaded with stars), and goodness knows the T-Wolves had quite a few teams with three really nice pieces (Sam, Latrell, Wally, etc.). Maybe they all of a sudden are able to man-up and go deep...maybe not. I think C's had to try something, and getting maybe the most versatile player of his generation can't be a bad thing. I'm simply saying that the expectations (IMHO) are unrealistic. Toronto...remind me again, what conference they're in...Iverson's 76ers...were they in the might eastern conference as well... If I'm not mistaken, KG had Sprewell and Cassell for 2 seasons and went to the western conference finals in one of those. Sorry, but examples of magical playoff runs from teams in the eastern conference only strengthens my point on the Celtics...what has Iverson done in the playoffs other than that one season...what would his team have done in the west...I'd say that 4-1 drubbing from LA might be a hint of the answer... You're right...they will be thin. An injury to Garnett would doom the season...an injury to Pierce would be a big blow...Allen would be the most "expendable" for lack of a better word, so you're right on that point. These three have been pretty durable throughout their careers, so I don't see any reason to expect an injury. They'll probably want/need to add a little veteran help and some depth, but they've positioned themselves to contend, which is miles ahead of where they were and where they were headed, IMO. Plus, I think they have at least a 3-year window, so if they can get lucky and add some depth, they could be a real player in a year two. It's a gamble, but one worth taking, IMO.
July 31, 200719 yr The Celtics won't win 50 games next year, IMHO. You're going out on a "big" limb there. What % of games do you think all 3 play in together?
July 31, 200719 yr You're going out on a "big" limb there. Sometimes you have to go out on a limb...that is where the fruit is. Won't win 50 games...there, I said it again. :sssh:
July 31, 200719 yr Sometimes you have to go out on a limb...that is where the fruit is. Won't win 50 games...there, I said it again. :sssh: I predict that I won't watch one of them...
July 31, 200719 yr What % of games do you think all 3 play in together? Don't know, don't care, doesn't alter my "prediction." They are paper thin, have an inexperienced PG who can't score in the 1/2 court, and a big they are counting on coming off of knee surgery. Can't wait to see the Vegas over/under on their win total....I wish I had a ranch I could put on it. :walk:
July 31, 200719 yr Don't know, don't care, doesn't alter my "prediction." They are paper thin, have an inexperienced PG who can't score in the 1/2 court, and a big they are counting on coming off of knee surgery. Can't wait to see the Vegas over/under on their win total....I wish I had a ranch I could put on it. :walk: I think the over/under will be around 45-47. I was being sarcastic about the limb. I'll join you on the limb.
July 31, 200719 yr Good...you can finally buy lunch. I'm tryiing to quit. Going back to an earlier question. I doubt that all 3 play in 50% of their games. When the futures come out for win totals in the NBA I'm intersted to see how high they make this one.
July 31, 200719 yr I'm tryiing to quit. Going back to an earlier question. I doubt that all 3 play in 50% of their games. When the futures come out for win totals in the NBA I'm intersted to see how high they make this one. Thus far Ainge has given away three 1st round picks this summer. This is a huge gamble. KG is good, but who's going to run the offense?
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.