Celtics would be better with KG, but he's probably not enough
By John Hollinger
ESPN Insider

Updated: July 30, 2007

Can the Celtics compete for a title with a triumvirate of Ray Allen, Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce? Seems like they should, right? But if they're going to, Danny Ainge's work is far from done. By trading Al Jefferson, Ryan Gomes, Sebastian Telfair and Gerald Green to the Wolves to get Garnett, as has been reported as likely to happen, the Celtics' team president would be denuding the rest of the roster.

Right now the opening day roster would consist of the "Big Three" and not much else -- you're basically looking at a glorified version of the Washington Wizards, folks.

Let's look at what that means by the numbers. I have a model I use for preseason predictions, and today I used it to plug in the projected PERs for the big three, plus those of Rajon Rondo, Kendrick Perkins and Leon Powe. Then I added an estimate for what Tony Allen might do in his return from knee surgery and rounded out the rotation with three "replacement level" players with a PER of 10. After all that I came out with … 46 wins. Which is nice, and in a sad commentary on the East puts the Celtics into the mix for a spot in the Finals. But at the same time it probably isn't something worth mortgaging the franchise over.

Obviously, Ainge can still change this, but the key is that he has to keep making moves. If you're going to go all in, Danny, go all in. Presumably he would have secured ownership's approval to use his cap exceptions and go way over the luxury tax before consummating this deal. (And if he didn't? Enjoy the Scalabrine era, KG.) If so, Ainge will need to use those dollars wisely to fill in the many holes left in his roster with decent players.

The big needs I see are a second point guard, a low-post defender and a wing stopper. Between his midlevel exception, his biannual exception and the veteran's minimum, Ainge needs to convince the few remaining quality free agents to sign up at below-market rates and take a shot at the ring.

If he does that (and, possibly, if Tony Allen comes back from last year's knee injury at full strength), the prospects improve significantly. If Ainge convinces, say, Ime Udoka and Brevin Knight to split his midlevel exception and persuades P.J. Brown to play for the veteran's minimum, then you're looking at another five wins or so. At that point you'd have to install the Celtics as the Eastern Conference favorites, although Boston still would fall far short of the elite teams in the West.

But until then, Ainge's work is far from done. Even in the watered-down Eastern Conference, the proposed trio of Pierce, Allen and Garnett doesn't guarantee dominance. I suppose there are Celtics Kool-Aid drinkers out there who will tell you that Glen "Big Baby" Davis and Gabe Pruitt can fill the void, and we won't know for certain whether that's true until the games start.

But the history of second-round draft picks says don't hold your breath, and after making moves for Allen and Garnett, probably giving themselves a two- or three-year window to contend, it seems foolish for the Celtics to leave their fate in those players' hands.

But in the end, Ainge may come up short regardless of how many more cards he plays. The idea of cashing in all your chips is to leave yourself with a team that's truly great. The Celtics with Garnett are merely pretty good, and at this late stage in the free-agent market, I'm not sure they can get much better.



Hollinger: Revving Up Minny
How would this proposed deal affect the Timberwolves? Certainly, they'll be worse this season. Maybe not '73 Sixers bad, but they're likely to be the worst team in the Western Conference.

However, the pending trade would give them a great opportunity to improve quickly. Al Jefferson is a beast in the low post and could be an All-Star in another year or two, even in the West. Gerald Green has a chance to be a 20-point scorer on the wings, and Sebastian Telfair's career may be salvageable as well. Meanwhile, Ryan Gomes adds a solid role player who can play both forward spots, and the two first-round picks will be huge in the Wolves' rebuilding effort.

The other big catch here is cap relief. For starters, the Wolves took back about $4 million less in contracts than they sent out. Throw in the expiring contracts of Ratliff, Ricky Davis, and, if he doesn't pan out, Telfair, and it will take over $19 million off Minnesota's books after the season, putting the Wolves well under the salary cap next summer.

While that cap space is unlikely to net one of next summer's free agent superstars -- nobody wants to endure an Arctic winter for the privilege of going 28-54 -- it does put Minnesota back into position to rebuild around players like Jefferson, Green, Corey Brewer, Randy Foye, and Rashad McCants.

In the meantime, a finished KG deal would mean it's time to break out the dynamite in the Twin Cities. Now that Garnett's appears to be gone, there's no point in keeping around vets like Juwan Howard, Marko Jaric, Troy Hudson, Trenton Hassell and Mark Blount -- any or all of them could be dealt or bought out in the coming months.

The only question left is who will do the blasting -- a consummated Garnett trade could set the table for team president Kevin McHale to give way and allow former Timberwolf Fred Hoiberg to run the team, a change most Wolves fans would heartily welcome.

-- John Hollinger

I missed the part where he says that they aren't even better than last years 31-51 Sonics.

All Hollinger said is basically what most clear thinking people have stated on this board all day long. Nobody has said that the Celtics are guaranteed to win a championship but they should be a pretty good team that if they can add a few good role players to put around their 3 all stars, they will be a legitimate contender.

Posted by JohnWallace44:

You're right Isles, your outlook for the Knicks has been rosy hasn't it? My apologies.

33, 23, 33 wins the last 3 years.

Looks like my outlook has been pretty on the money.

Posted by JohnWallace44:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by JohnWallace44:

You're right Isles, your outlook for the Knicks has been rosy hasn't it? My apologies.

33, 23, 33 wins the last 3 years.

Looks like my outlook has been pretty on the money.

This team is far and away better than the product that we've been putting on the floor post Camby trade. True or not?

Far and away better? Absolutely false.

And since when is the post Camby trade era, the standard of excellence?

That's the same inane thinking that used Larry Brown's win total as a barometer.

Posted by JohnWallace44:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by JohnWallace44:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by JohnWallace44:

You're right Isles, your outlook for the Knicks has been rosy hasn't it? My apologies.

33, 23, 33 wins the last 3 years.

Looks like my outlook has been pretty on the money.

This team is far and away better than the product that we've been putting on the floor post Camby trade. True or not?

Far and away better? Absolutely false.

We've replaced a mess at the 4 spot with an 20-10 player with a high PER rating, and drafted 2 players who will be among our best wing defenders and best spot shooters. Nichols is raw and needs to work on the handle, but Chandler will make a difference for this team, this year. (they were also ranked #6 and #7 among all rookies after the summer league)

Balkman, Mardy, Lee and Nate will all be improved as well.

Not far and away better? How many wins better do you think we'll be?

Randolph won't be 20/10 this year and Curry's #'s will go down as well. How long before Randolph becomes a problem child?

Nichols and Chandler won't play enough to make a difference.

Wasn't Frye supposed to improve last year too?

I think I said about 38-40 wins this year in a prediction thread. I'd stick with that. Last year I predicted 41.

Posted by islesfan:

Randolph won't be 20/10 this year and Curry's #'s will go down as well. How long before Randolph becomes a problem child?

Nichols and Chandler won't play enough to make a difference.

Wasn't Frye supposed to improve last year too?

I think I said about 38-40 wins this year in a prediction thread. I'd stick with that. Last year I predicted 41.

So why shouldn't Zach be a 20/10 players this year? He's gonna get plenty of playing time. Why will Curry's #'s go down? What exactly would cause that to happen? The guy is such an efficient player on offense, that he doesn't need a lot of shots, but he's gonna get a lot anyway, cuz Isiah will make sure that he get's a lot of touches. The only thing that will happen is that Jamal will see fewer touches as will the other guys on the team. This is how it should be. Let your best players carry the action and the rest fill in what's needed.

This team is gonna be stronger than it was last year. We're gonna improve from within and due to our additions. It wasn't hard to predict poor performances the last few years, considering the retooling and the expectations for those teams. None were expected to be a lock to do well. I think things will finally come together this year and you won't have anything to say. I look forward to the silence from you this year. Oh i'm sure you'll be there loud as ever when the team loses a game, but overall you won't have as much to crow about.

Posted by nixluva:

Posted by islesfan:

Randolph won't be 20/10 this year and Curry's #'s will go down as well. How long before Randolph becomes a problem child?

Nichols and Chandler won't play enough to make a difference.

Wasn't Frye supposed to improve last year too?

I think I said about 38-40 wins this year in a prediction thread. I'd stick with that. Last year I predicted 41.

So why shouldn't Zach be a 20/10 players this year? He's gonna get plenty of playing time. Why will Curry's #'s go down? What exactly would cause that to happen? The guy is such an efficient player on offense, that he doesn't need a lot of shots, but he's gonna get a lot anyway, cuz Isiah will make sure that he get's a lot of touches. The only thing that will happen is that Jamal will see fewer touches as will the other guys on the team. This is how it should be. Let your best players carry the action and the rest fill in what's needed.

This team is gonna be stronger than it was last year. We're gonna improve from within and due to our additions. It wasn't hard to predict poor performances the last few years, considering the retooling and the expectations for those teams. None were expected to be a lock to do well. I think things will finally come together this year and you won't have anything to say. I look forward to the silence from you this year. Oh i'm sure you'll be there loud as ever when the team loses a game, but overall you won't have as much to crow about.

Because Randolph's not on a young and inexperienced team where he can do what he wants and take as many shots as he pleases. He'll go back to what he did the 2 years previous with a more veteran and mediocre team. About 18/8.

Curry's will go down because some of his shots will be going to Randolph. Plus a healthy Crawford will be taking his share of shots that were going to Curry when Crawford was out. Curry will be around 16/6.

It wasn't hard to predict poor performances the last few years?

Just wondering but did you predict poor performances the last few years?

I look forward to the silence from you this year.

Au contraire, I expect this to be a banner year for Isiah Haters everywhere. No more excuses.

Posted by JohnWallace44:

I have to ask what would make you happy, oh Captain of the Haters?

Would you be happier if you were wrong and the Knicks got say the 5 seed and beat Toronto to get into the second round?

Or, would you be happier if you were right and the Knicks had another 32 win season?

Does the fact that your second scenario is much more plausible than the first, mean anything to you?

What would make me happy is to see the Knicks on a path to becoming a championship contender. I don't think Isiah has a freaking clue as has been proven by his tenure thus far. Sorry but I wouldn't hang my hat on underachieving overpaid malcontents, late first rd picks and 2nd rd picks. That has never been and will never be a blueprint for success in the NBA.

numbers numbers numbers... we are still a team full of guys who have never proven they can win NBA games, and have more question marks that answers.

We have been a win now team for 3 years good for 33,23 and 33 wins.

When the Knicks start to acually win games these arguements will hold water. Until then we are capped out basement fodder

Posted by nixluva:

So why shouldn't Zach be a 20/10 players this year? He's gonna get plenty of playing time. Why will Curry's #'s go down? What exactly would cause that to happen? The guy is such an efficient player on offense, that he doesn't need a lot of shots, but he's gonna get a lot anyway, cuz Isiah will make sure that he get's a lot of touches. The only thing that will happen is that Jamal will see fewer touches as will the other guys on the team. This is how it should be. Let your best players carry the action and the rest fill in what's needed.

This team is gonna be stronger than it was last year. We're gonna improve from within and due to our additions.

I love the perennial predictions that we will improve from within.
HOW DO YOU KNOW? Crystal ball? Frye improved last year eh? Threatened to make the all-star team? Why do you think you know what is going to happen?

Posted by nixluva:

It wasn't hard to predict poor performances the last few years, considering the retooling and the expectations for those teams. None were expected to be a lock to do well. I think things will finally come together this year and you won't have anything to say. I look forward to the silence from you this year. Oh i'm sure you'll be there loud as ever when the team loses a game, but overall you won't have as much to crow about.

When have you EVER predicted poor performances? EVER?! Please show me a single post of yours that predicted anything less than improvement?