Brad Stevens Thread – Finding The Way

[zoyathedestroya]

The ownership and bean counters clearly looked at this season as a bridge year with strict mandate to stay under luxury tax. It’s obvious they did not expect the window to open until next year. Maybe Brad felt differently when he spent future draft capital or maybe he just realizes that more young players outside the top 5-10 wouldn’t do a thing for this team right now. The Celtics have clicked and it’s led to a level of performance far beyond expected. The window of opportunity for another title may only be open a crack but it is definitely open. If it crashes in first round then so be it. If Celtics can dispose of Nets - and I think they will - they will have a huge psychological advantage and home court over the Bucks. With a healthy Rob and a wave of interior defenders to throw at Giannis the Celtics might do something special. As far as I’m concerned it’s all icing on the cake at this point as this season looked lost before it even began.

But why did we then go above the tax this year?

Read on Twitter

[SatchSanders]

The ownership and bean counters clearly looked at this season as a bridge year with strict mandate to stay under luxury tax. It’s obvious they did not expect the window to open until next year. Maybe Brad felt differently when he spent future draft capital or maybe he just realizes that more young players outside the top 5-10 wouldn’t do a thing for this team right now. The Celtics have clicked and it’s led to a level of performance far beyond expected. The window of opportunity for another title may only be open a crack but it is definitely open. If it crashes in first round then so be it. If Celtics can dispose of Nets - and I think they will - they will have a huge psychological advantage and home court over the Bucks. With a healthy Rob and a wave of interior defenders to throw at Giannis the Celtics might do something special. As far as I’m concerned it’s all icing on the cake at this point as this season looked lost before it even began.

But why did we then go above the tax this year?

I don’t think we did, did we? With Richardson, Schroder and others going out wasn’t that enough to avoid surpassing the cap? Or did Brown surpass an unlikely incentive and tip the balance. Asking as I truly don’t know.

[Fencer reregistered]

I agree that the Celts play as a team. I do think other teams have star power that we don't have. Our record stacks up, but that might be a bit of a mirage accounting for injuries and current health of teams. We aren't even favored in the 1st round and wouldn't have the best player on the floor vs the Nets, Bucks, or Sixers. The Suns had 13 more wins than we did despite a lot more injuries. Warriors might finally be healthy. We are in the pack but not at the front of it.

Perhaps taking a realistic view of championship odds is more insightful than asking whether we are the 4th or 6th most likely team? I think our odds are probably just below 10% this year. Was that worth Brad spending future assets to maximize short-term performance vs Ainge hoarding future assets to try to make an eventual kill shot trade? I guess we will find out, but I feel like people are a little too far upfield on that one right now. Putting aside the question of which model is better suited to build a true contender or championship team, we don't even know if Brad's model is a significant improvement in the short-term once the real games start.

The Knicks looked good in the regular season last year because they were healthier and trying harder than other teams. Most of the other teams with good records this year have been more injured or load-managing a lot more than we did, and IMO we just might come to find out that our talent tops out below a lot of them. We also have a rookie head coach in the playoffs, where coaching actually matters.

Not rooting for that, just think you can make a solid case that for many teams, the quality of rosters taking the floor in these playoffs are better than their record this year. Suns, Grizz, Heat, Bucks, Warriors, Sixers, Nets, Raps, Timberwolves can all say that, if not the Mavs as well. Can we?

Yes we can. The if-healthy team seems to have been a lot better in the latter part of the season than in the earlier part, quite apart from any observations that they were in fact healthy later but not earlier. Given that both scheme and personnel changed mid-season to moderate extents, it seems plausible that this is more than just an illusion.

I guess so. We definitely closed strong over the last 45 games. On the other hand, we are also likely to be without Timelord for at least the bulk of the Nets series. Not really trying to answer the questions right now. They playoffs will do that for us, in all likelihood.

I do think the following things are true:

1. We are better than last year's team.
2. Nearly all of that is due to better health and trading multiple draft picks.
3. It could all easily end up with the same result at last year, if we lose to a lesser Nets team in the first round while 5x healthier.
4. The East is tough, but there is really no one to fear.
5. We definitely could sneak through this year.

I do remember watching the Knicks last year and seeing that they were healthy, had chemistry, and played defense harder than most teams care to in the regular season, and thinking, "Awwww, that's cute."

Tatum alone makes us better than last year's Knicks, but a part of me is wondering how much so in the scheme of things.

I'm still going to push back.

You're right that the most important roster additions (Horford, White) were costly in terms of picks. But there's also been considerable development from the players already present. I know you don't think Smart developed much. But Tatum has made huge strides offensively. Brown has made some. Rob has made large strides at both ends of the court. Grant is a completely different player at both ends. Pritchard is a much better defender.

Also, multiple players have benefited from Ime's schemes and role assignments. I don't think anybody is worse off, except perhaps for players who aren't here any more or who fell out of the rotation.

[sam_I_am]

The ownership and bean counters clearly looked at this season as a bridge year with strict mandate to stay under luxury tax. It’s obvious they did not expect the window to open until next year. Maybe Brad felt differently when he spent future draft capital or maybe he just realizes that more young players outside the top 5-10 wouldn’t do a thing for this team right now. The Celtics have clicked and it’s led to a level of performance far beyond expected. The window of opportunity for another title may only be open a crack but it is definitely open. If it crashes in first round then so be it. If Celtics can dispose of Nets - and I think they will - they will have a huge psychological advantage and home court over the Bucks. With a healthy Rob and a wave of interior defenders to throw at Giannis the Celtics might do something special. As far as I’m concerned it’s all icing on the cake at this point as this season looked lost before it even began.

But why did we then go above the tax this year?

Read on Twitter

I honestly based my opinion solely on posts by Keith Smith and others who follow that stuff. If they did go over the tax it must have been after they realized that the energy was shifting!

[zoyathedestroya]

Cs about $1.826M clear of the tax line, per spotrac.

[Captain_Caveman]

The ownership and bean counters clearly looked at this season as a bridge year with strict mandate to stay under luxury tax. It’s obvious they did not expect the window to open until next year. Maybe Brad felt differently when he spent future draft capital or maybe he just realizes that more young players outside the top 5-10 wouldn’t do a thing for this team right now. The Celtics have clicked and it’s led to a level of performance far beyond expected. The window of opportunity for another title may only be open a crack but it is definitely open. If it crashes in first round then so be it. If Celtics can dispose of Nets - and I think they will - they will have a huge psychological advantage and home court over the Bucks. With a healthy Rob and a wave of interior defenders to throw at Giannis the Celtics might do something special. As far as I’m concerned it’s all icing on the cake at this point as this season looked lost before it even began.

But why did we then go above the tax this year?

Read on Twitter

To start the year. We got out of the tax at the deadline, predictably. But why go into it in the first place if there was a “strict mandate”?

[Captain_Caveman]

But why did we then go above the tax this year?

Read on Twitter

I honestly based my opinion solely on posts by Keith Smith and others who follow that stuff. If they did go over the tax it must have been after they realized that the energy was shifting!

We were definitely completely out of the tax and then put ourselves into it by a few million to sign Schroder. I found that odd at the time, as it generally makes no sense to be a little bit in the tax. We dumped Schroder at the deadline and all, but I don't think that signing him in the first place aligns with a strict no lux tax mandate. JMO.

[Captain_Caveman]

Cs about $1.826M clear of the tax line, per spotrac.

Even after dumping Schroder, I believe that it subsequently took Jaylen not making the ASG to keep us out of the tax.

[Captain_Caveman]

Yes we can. The if-healthy team seems to have been a lot better in the latter part of the season than in the earlier part, quite apart from any observations that they were in fact healthy later but not earlier. Given that both scheme and personnel changed mid-season to moderate extents, it seems plausible that this is more than just an illusion.

I guess so. We definitely closed strong over the last 45 games. On the other hand, we are also likely to be without Timelord for at least the bulk of the Nets series. Not really trying to answer the questions right now. They playoffs will do that for us, in all likelihood.

I do think the following things are true:

1. We are better than last year's team.
2. Nearly all of that is due to better health and trading multiple draft picks.
3. It could all easily end up with the same result at last year, if we lose to a lesser Nets team in the first round while 5x healthier.
4. The East is tough, but there is really no one to fear.
5. We definitely could sneak through this year.

I do remember watching the Knicks last year and seeing that they were healthy, had chemistry, and played defense harder than most teams care to in the regular season, and thinking, "Awwww, that's cute."

Tatum alone makes us better than last year's Knicks, but a part of me is wondering how much so in the scheme of things.

I'm still going to push back.

You're right that the most important roster additions (Horford, White) were costly in terms of picks. But there's also been considerable development from the players already present. I know you don't think Smart developed much. But Tatum has made huge strides offensively. Brown has made some. Rob has made large strides at both ends of the court. Grant is a completely different player at both ends. Pritchard is a much better defender.

Also, multiple players have benefited from Ime's schemes and role assignments. I don't think anybody is worse off, except perhaps for players who aren't here any more or who fell out of the rotation.

I think guys made strides, I just think the biggest thing is the tremendous disparity in health between last year and this year. Quantifying the impact of injuries is always hard. Tatum being hurt is a bigger deal than Kornet being hurt, and while some metrics use total salaries of games lost, John Wall not as big a loss as Jalen Green would be. But whatever the metrics, we were among the healthiest teams in the league this year, and were not at all healthy last year.

Our most common 5-man lineup last year was 55th in the NBA in minutes played together, and included Theis, who was traded at the deadline. This year, our most common 5-lineup was in 4th in the NBA in minutes played together. That is hands-down the biggest difference between this year and last, IMO. Trading the picks is next for me. This team is nowhere with Kemba still here in Horford's place, and Derrick White is also a useful player.

Tatum had already led two undermanned, young teams to the brink of the Finals before last year. Jaylen had already made an All-Star team, and Smart's is quantifiably very similar this year to what he has always been. I think they mostly just look better because they aren't out there with half a team this year.

[zoyathedestroya]

But why did we then go above the tax this year?

Read on Twitter

To start the year. We got out of the tax at the deadline, predictably. But why go into it in the first place if there was a “strict mandate”?

Not unusual for teams to start the year over the tax line then find ways to get under before the deadline (technically, can still get under after deadline). Miami's done it a few times post-Bron. But I don't think it was a strict mandate either. They're on record saying owners are willing to pay the tax for a contender so depending on what was available at the deadline, it could've gone either way. They got the best of both worlds -- avoid the tax while constructing a potential contender (we can disagree on this; I think we are with Rob back in time and healthy so TBD).

[sam_I_am]

Read on Twitter

To start the year. We got out of the tax at the deadline, predictably. But why go into it in the first place if there was a “strict mandate”?

Not unusual for teams to start the year over the tax line then find ways to get under before the deadline (technically, can still get under after deadline). Miami's done it a few times post-Bron. But I don't think it was a strict mandate either. They're on record saying owners are willing to pay the tax for a contender so depending on what was available at the deadline, it could've gone either way. They got the best of both worlds -- avoid the tax while constructing a potential contender (we can disagree on this; I think we are with Rob back in time and healthy so TBD).

Realistically the team knew they were a year away from being able to make a big move. I believe Wyc has been open about avoiding repeater tax so they didn’t want to waste the three year window by being over this year. I don’t think I am giving a hot take to say expectations for this season were modest. The organization did not go all in this season at all. And yet here we are, ahead of schedule and still in position to make the big moves and expenditures necessary this off season. The got to have their cake and they may get to eat it too.

[zoyathedestroya]

To start the year. We got out of the tax at the deadline, predictably. But why go into it in the first place if there was a “strict mandate”?

Not unusual for teams to start the year over the tax line then find ways to get under before the deadline (technically, can still get under after deadline). Miami's done it a few times post-Bron. But I don't think it was a strict mandate either. They're on record saying owners are willing to pay the tax for a contender so depending on what was available at the deadline, it could've gone either way. They got the best of both worlds -- avoid the tax while constructing a potential contender (we can disagree on this; I think we are with Rob back in time and healthy so TBD).

Realistically the team knew they were a year away from being able to make a big move. I believe Wyc has been open about avoiding repeater tax so they didn’t want to waste the three year window by being over this year. I don’t think I am giving a hot take to say expectations for this season were modest. The organization did not go all in this season at all. And yet here we are, ahead of schedule and still in position to make the big moves and expenditures necessary this off season. The got to have their cake and they may get to eat it too.

By "could've gone either way," I meant if Beal became available or someone on his level. Their salaries were structured as such that they could make a big move before the deadline or in the offseason. So we're not in disagreement here.

[hugepatsfan]

Two guys I really like for him to target in his next move...

1) Royce O'Neal in Utah. He's a versatile wing/big combo defender. Can hit the 3 at a high rate. Good ball mover. Utah is deep in the tax and capped out. Do not believe they would want to deal him off for a pick or salary relief, but if they do swing a deal they probably have to use him for salary matching and the team trading with Utah might prefer a pick of ours over O'Neale since hypothetically they'd be rebuilding. I.e. Utah trades for Jerami Grant from DET and they prefer a 2023 BOS 1st over O'Neale as a role player. O'Neale is signed for 2 more years at $9.2M and $9.5M.

2) Kevin Huerter in ATL. Knock down shooter. Able to handle ball handling duties even though he's not a pure point. Not an asset defensively but not a liability either as he's got some length at 6'7" so he can handle switching to a degree. Again, don't think ATL would move him just for salary relief or a pick but 3 team scenarios could work. I.e. ATL swaps him over to POR for Josh Hart for a more defensively focused wing but POR prefers the extra salary relief and a BOS 2023 1st as they retool around Dame. Huerter will start a 4 year $65M extension next year.

Take either of them into a TPE and give up a 2023 1st. Either one of those guy would round out our rotation perfectly...

Smart / Pritchard
Brown / White
Tatum / O'Neale or Huerter
Horford / G Williams
R Williams / Theis

That team has it all... shooting, ball movement, ISO scorers, inside defense, perimeter defense.

[Slax]

I agree that the Celts play as a team. I do think other teams have star power that we don't have. Our record stacks up, but that might be a bit of a mirage accounting for injuries and current health of teams. We aren't even favored in the 1st round and wouldn't have the best player on the floor vs the Nets, Bucks, or Sixers. The Suns had 13 more wins than we did despite a lot more injuries. Warriors might finally be healthy. We are in the pack but not at the front of it.

Perhaps taking a realistic view of championship odds is more insightful than asking whether we are the 4th or 6th most likely team? I think our odds are probably just below 10% this year. Was that worth Brad spending future assets to maximize short-term performance vs Ainge hoarding future assets to try to make an eventual kill shot trade? I guess we will find out, but I feel like people are a little too far upfield on that one right now. Putting aside the question of which model is better suited to build a true contender or championship team, we don't even know if Brad's model is a significant improvement in the short-term once the real games start.

The Knicks looked good in the regular season last year because they were healthier and trying harder than other teams. Most of the other teams with good records this year have been more injured or load-managing a lot more than we did, and IMO we just might come to find out that our talent tops out below a lot of them. We also have a rookie head coach in the playoffs, where coaching actually matters.

Not rooting for that, just think you can make a solid case that for many teams, the quality of rosters taking the floor in these playoffs are better than their record this year. Suns, Grizz, Heat, Bucks, Warriors, Sixers, Nets, Raps, Timberwolves can all say that, if not the Mavs as well. Can we?

Yes we can. The if-healthy team seems to have been a lot better in the latter part of the season than in the earlier part, quite apart from any observations that they were in fact healthy later but not earlier. Given that both scheme and personnel changed mid-season to moderate extents, it seems plausible that this is more than just an illusion.

I guess so. We definitely closed strong over the last 45 games. On the other hand, we are also likely to be without Timelord for at least the bulk of the Nets series. Not really trying to answer the questions right now. They playoffs will do that for us, in all likelihood.

I do think the following things are true:

1. We are better than last year's team.
2. Nearly all of that is due to better health and trading multiple draft picks.
3. It could all easily end up with the same result at last year, if we lose to a lesser Nets team in the first round while 5x healthier.
4. The East is tough, but there is really no one to fear.
5. We definitely could sneak through this year.

I do remember watching the Knicks last year and seeing that they were healthy, had chemistry, and played defense harder than most teams care to in the regular season, and thinking, "Awwww, that's cute."

Tatum alone makes us better than last year's Knicks, but a part of me is wondering how much so in the scheme of things.

The comparison to the Knicks last year is facile. The Knicks had a net rating of +2.4, the 9th best in the league. Their SRS was 2.13, 11th in the league. They won at a 47-win pace for the whole season, and their expected W-L put them there.

Even if you discount the "Celtics had a shift to become elite mid-season" narrative and think this was basically just a bit of luck and health at the end of the season, the Celtics won 51 games, their expected W-L for the season was 59 wins, their net rating was +7.5 (2nd in the league), and their SRS was 7.02 (1st in the league). Basically, the Celtics blew like six close games early in the season, but otherwise were a genuinely really good team over the course of the year. They clearly weren't just a little bit better than last year's Knicks.

[Captain_Caveman]

Yes we can. The if-healthy team seems to have been a lot better in the latter part of the season than in the earlier part, quite apart from any observations that they were in fact healthy later but not earlier. Given that both scheme and personnel changed mid-season to moderate extents, it seems plausible that this is more than just an illusion.

I guess so. We definitely closed strong over the last 45 games. On the other hand, we are also likely to be without Timelord for at least the bulk of the Nets series. Not really trying to answer the questions right now. They playoffs will do that for us, in all likelihood.

I do think the following things are true:

1. We are better than last year's team.
2. Nearly all of that is due to better health and trading multiple draft picks.
3. It could all easily end up with the same result at last year, if we lose to a lesser Nets team in the first round while 5x healthier.
4. The East is tough, but there is really no one to fear.
5. We definitely could sneak through this year.

I do remember watching the Knicks last year and seeing that they were healthy, had chemistry, and played defense harder than most teams care to in the regular season, and thinking, "Awwww, that's cute."

Tatum alone makes us better than last year's Knicks, but a part of me is wondering how much so in the scheme of things.

The comparison to the Knicks last year is facile. The Knicks had a net rating of +2.4, the 9th best in the league. Their SRS was 2.13, 11th in the league. They won at a 47-win pace for the whole season, and their expected W-L put them there.

Even if you discount the "Celtics had a shift to become elite mid-season" narrative and think this was basically just a bit of luck and health at the end of the season, the Celtics won 51 games, their expected W-L for the season was 59 wins, their net rating was +7.5 (2nd in the league), and their SRS was 7.02 (1st in the league). Basically, the Celtics blew like six close games early in the season, but otherwise were a genuinely really good team over the course of the year. They clearly weren't just a little bit better than last year's Knicks.

I said as much, but just wondering how much of this actually matters.

[Slax]

I guess so. We definitely closed strong over the last 45 games. On the other hand, we are also likely to be without Timelord for at least the bulk of the Nets series. Not really trying to answer the questions right now. They playoffs will do that for us, in all likelihood.

I do think the following things are true:

1. We are better than last year's team.
2. Nearly all of that is due to better health and trading multiple draft picks.
3. It could all easily end up with the same result at last year, if we lose to a lesser Nets team in the first round while 5x healthier.
4. The East is tough, but there is really no one to fear.
5. We definitely could sneak through this year.

I do remember watching the Knicks last year and seeing that they were healthy, had chemistry, and played defense harder than most teams care to in the regular season, and thinking, "Awwww, that's cute."

Tatum alone makes us better than last year's Knicks, but a part of me is wondering how much so in the scheme of things.

The comparison to the Knicks last year is facile. The Knicks had a net rating of +2.4, the 9th best in the league. Their SRS was 2.13, 11th in the league. They won at a 47-win pace for the whole season, and their expected W-L put them there.

Even if you discount the "Celtics had a shift to become elite mid-season" narrative and think this was basically just a bit of luck and health at the end of the season, the Celtics won 51 games, their expected W-L for the season was 59 wins, their net rating was +7.5 (2nd in the league), and their SRS was 7.02 (1st in the league). Basically, the Celtics blew like six close games early in the season, but otherwise were a genuinely really good team over the course of the year. They clearly weren't just a little bit better than last year's Knicks.

I said as much, but just wondering how much of this actually matters.

It matters quite a bit. The comparison to the Knicks was designed to suggest that the Celtics belong to some category of teams whose regular season success is somewhat meaningless or illusory because it is purely a result of health and effort and therefore they are likely to fail in the playoffs the same way the Knicks did. But pretty obviously we should not be thinking of a team that beats other teams by 7 points a game as just being a slightly better version of a team that beats other teams by 2 points a game. The Celtics showing themselves to be an actually good team in the regular season - as born out by the amount the score against other teams and the amount other teams score against them - should significantly influence our estimation of how likely they are to win games in the playoffs. That's true even if the regular season success was partly a function of health and effort.

[Captain_Caveman]

The comparison to the Knicks last year is facile. The Knicks had a net rating of +2.4, the 9th best in the league. Their SRS was 2.13, 11th in the league. They won at a 47-win pace for the whole season, and their expected W-L put them there.

Even if you discount the "Celtics had a shift to become elite mid-season" narrative and think this was basically just a bit of luck and health at the end of the season, the Celtics won 51 games, their expected W-L for the season was 59 wins, their net rating was +7.5 (2nd in the league), and their SRS was 7.02 (1st in the league). Basically, the Celtics blew like six close games early in the season, but otherwise were a genuinely really good team over the course of the year. They clearly weren't just a little bit better than last year's Knicks.

I said as much, but just wondering how much of this actually matters.

It matters quite a bit. The comparison to the Knicks was designed to suggest that the Celtics belong to some category of teams whose regular season success is somewhat meaningless or illusory because it is purely a result of health and effort and therefore they are likely to fail in the playoffs the same way the Knicks did. But pretty obviously we should not be thinking of a team that beats other teams by 7 points a game as just being a slightly better version of a team that beats other teams by 2 points a game. The Celtics showing themselves to be an actually good team in the regular season - as born out by the amount the score against other teams and the amount other teams score against them - should significantly influence our estimation of how likely they are to win games in the playoffs. That's true even if the regular season success was partly a function of health and effort.

Well, things are going their way since I posted that, but I still don't know. One bucket from having gone down 0-1 in this series, and I think it was more than partly health and effort. Other teams in the same win range as us had far lesser health and in many cases added major players towards the end of the season on top of getting healthier. I think it is fair to ask if this team lacks a certain gear.

[jfs1000d]

Cs about $1.826M clear of the tax line, per spotrac.

Even after dumping Schroder, I believe that it subsequently took Jaylen not making the ASG to keep us out of the tax.

We would have adjusted. We are going to head into the tax eventually. This saves one year of the tax. If you are going to go into the tax, go in for the right player and the right reason.

[Slax]

I said as much, but just wondering how much of this actually matters.

It matters quite a bit. The comparison to the Knicks was designed to suggest that the Celtics belong to some category of teams whose regular season success is somewhat meaningless or illusory because it is purely a result of health and effort and therefore they are likely to fail in the playoffs the same way the Knicks did. But pretty obviously we should not be thinking of a team that beats other teams by 7 points a game as just being a slightly better version of a team that beats other teams by 2 points a game. The Celtics showing themselves to be an actually good team in the regular season - as born out by the amount the score against other teams and the amount other teams score against them - should significantly influence our estimation of how likely they are to win games in the playoffs. That's true even if the regular season success was partly a function of health and effort.

Well, things are going their way since I posted that, but I still don't know.

Fwiw I would have had the same response before the series started, I just didn't see the post before then. Everything in my response has nothing to do with how this Nets series has gone so far.

One bucket from having gone down 0-1 in this series, and I think it was more than partly health and effort. Other teams in the same win range as us had far lesser health and in many cases added major players towards the end of the season on top of getting healthier. I think it is fair to ask if this team lacks a certain gear.

Kyrie hits a bunch of crazy contested shots in the literal game of a lifetime - almost nobody ever has a performance like that. In spite of that, the Nets lose the game by one point. To me, that shows an impressive level of defensive dominance, which they sustained through game 2. To you, that shows that the team isn't really that good and they just got lucky they hit a buzzer-beating game winner after putting up more effort than their opponent (who I guess wasn't trying in the playoffs?).

Likewise, in the regular season, the Celtics beating teams by 7 points per 100 over the course of the full season (and by much more in the second half of the season!) to me shows that they were a relatively dominant regular season team that deserves respect in the playoffs, and that their lower-than-expected record from losing a bunch of close games early is primarily a reflection of bad in-game luck and very obvious improvements that happened later in the season. By your telling, this can be explained almost exclusively by exceptional health and being regular season try-hards. Also, all the teams clustered around them in wins that had way less impressive point differentials should be held in higher esteem because they didn't try as hard and had more missed games to injuries but ended up with a similar number of wins.

I'm not a pollyanna. There are a bunch of weaknesses in this Celtics team, such as lack of shot creators and outside shooters, which is likely to come back to bite them this playoffs. I'm also not saying the Celtics weren't the lucky beneficiaries of good health, or that hitting that game-winning buzzer beater wasn't lucky - there are a lot of different forms of luck, and the Celtics have been a definitely been the beneficiary in some ways this season and postseason. They could lose in the first round (although it's starting to get unlikely). They could lose in the second. They could lose in the conference finals. This is not some sort of unbeatable juggernaut by any stretch of the imagination - they are a flawed team that is currently benefiting from being good in a year when all other teams in the league are also flawed.

But I object to you interpreting everything the Celtics accomplish in terms of luck and effort, when the actual empirical evidence shows they are genuinely a very talented team that deserves to be respected at this point. The comparison to last year's Knicks - a team that didn't win as many games, narrowly beat most of their opponents, and then went on to have a predictably poor playoffs - is silly and undeserving. The metrics told us the Knicks weren't that good heading into the playoffs. The Celtics are categorically different.

[hugepatsfan]

Thinking from a GM standpoint, Nic Claxton would fit our defensive schemes really, really well. I would explore adding him in the offseason...

1) Buy Horford out and re-sign him for an amount equal to tax payer MLE ($6.4M) using bird rights... saves $5.6M
2) Salary dump Nesmith somewhere for a second rounder or even just a TPE if no one wants him... saves $3.8M
3) Trade Daniel Theis to POR into one of their TPEs attaching seconds... saves $8.7M

If you do all that, you free up enough money to use a full MLE I think. Claxton would be sooooooo perfect as a backup 5 here in our switch everything scheme. Love that fit. Wonder if that would pry him away from BRK.