When the Ray Allen deal was announced on draft night I was watching the draft on television with a friend and I turned to him and said, “Oh my God, Danny is trading Big Al Jefferson for Kevin Garnett.” It was the only way the Allen trade made the slightest bit of sense. Danny Ainge is anything but an idiot. For me at the time and in the intervening five weeks I went through a variety of moods, mostly because I have watched Big Al play for three years and I am extremely fond of him and his game. I really wanted him to be the next great Celtics superstar. And for that reason, as Danny was negotiating with McHale over the terms of the deal I wanted to see Danny press for better terms than he eventually got. There was a side of me that did not want the deal to go through. In my fantasies I hoped Danny would somehow get Garnett without giving up Big Al. Alas, that was not to be.

But that is all water under the bridge. The Wolves got the best possible package they could hope for from the Celtics, but the Cs did not overpay. The reason is because of the way the NBA works, which is unlike other professional team sports. The evidence strongly suggests that with this deal Danny has made the Celtics legitimate contenders for the next three to five years. There are probably only a half-dozen teams in the NBA that can make that claim legitimately and now the Celtics are one of them. For a team that is coming off a 24-58 season, and has made no major free agent acquisition, that is an astonishing development.

This is the genius of the trade: it is a textbook application of the Iron Law of NBA championships, and the Iron Law of Contention.

The Iron Law is simply this: to win an NBA championship the best player on a team has to be one of the five best players in the league and one of the two dozen or so best players of all time. The NBA is not a democracy. It is a league ruled by superstars. 38 of the past 51 NBA titles were won by teams led by nine players: Russell, Chamberlain, Abdul-Jabbar, Magic, Bird, Jordan, Olajuwon, Duncan and Shaq.

Three more were won by teams led by other top-20 all-time players like Rick Barry, Moses Malone and Julius Erving. Bill Walton was en route to a certain all-time top 15 status until injuries derailed him, and that is another title team. That makes over 80 percent won by teams led by this caliber of player. No other team sport has anything close to domination of its championships by teams led by the league’s single best players.

The criteria for who the best players are is not subjective. It is taken from the all-pro teams and the MVP voting, both of which are based upon regular-season performance and are determined before anyone knows the outcome of the playoffs. (Go to http://www.nbadraft.net/mcchesney002.asp and http://www.nbadraft.net/mcchesney001.asp to get the full details, and a complete explanation of the evaluations. I have updated to data for this piece to include the 2007 season.) There are 87 NBA players since 1956 who have made at least three all-NBA teams (first, second or third team) or have made two all-NBA teams and have received top 5 MVP voting. What is striking is that even among these 87 greats, the all-NBA slots and MVP votes have tended to go to a much smaller number of around two dozen or so players.

It is worth noting that Kevin Garnett is one of these players. Kevin Garnett is by all criteria one of the top two dozen players in NBA history. In five years he will likely be among the top 15-20, in the same territory as David Robinson and Hakeem Olajuwon. If he has Karl Malone-Robert Parish type longevity his final ranking could be even higher. By all evidence, he has the “right stuff” to be the best player on an NBA championship team. Shaq and Duncan are the other active players on the list. Kobe, Nash and Nowitzki are just behind Garnett, though not quite as accomplished. LeBron and Wade are shooting up the charts and only major injuries will keep them from reaching the top tier.

Otherwise no one else has made a huge dent that is in the league quite yet. Talk about Bosh and Paul and Yao and Howard and Jefferson remains talk for now. And if history provides any indication, these guys will bust out as first-team all-NBA type guys in the very near future, or they won’t ever get there.

As I said, this is tall timber.

It will astound you to see how not merely championships, but appearances in the league and even conference finals are closely linked to how good the best player on a team is. In the NBA, you live and die to no small extent by the greatness of your very best player. It is why the Lebron James Cavaliers could make the finals. Would it be possible for a terrible team with the best linebacker in league history to make the Super Bowl? Fat chance. Or a mediocre baseball team with the best relief pitcher in the league to make the World Series? Never happen.

Indeed the remaining 10 NBA championships were led by and large by teams that had two players who rank 25-50 on the all-time list, and were all-NBA the years their teams won the title, like the 70s Celtics (Cowens, Havlicek) and Knicks (Reed, Frazier). There have only been two teams in NBA history in the last 51 seasons that were not led by a top 50 player: Seattle in 1979-- that was a strange zone for the NBA: Walton was hurt in 1978 or else the Blazers would have won their third straight title; the Sixers were still an internal mess; and Bird and Magic were not yet in the league—and Detroit in 2004. But those teams both had top 87 players in DJ and Billups. There is a huge drop-off from the success of teams led by all-time top 25 players to teams led by all-time top 50 players. And if your team is not led by a player who ranks in the all-time top 87, you can pretty much forget even getting to the conference finals. Only 23 of the past 204 teams that made the NBA conference finals were NOT led by a top 87 player, and only one time did that team advance to the finals, where they lost.

Think about that. If you don’t have a top 87 caliber guy leading your team you have only around a 10 percent chance of ever making the conference finals. Your chances of getting to the finals are all but non-existent. Your chances of winning a title do not exist.

It is why teams like the Knicks can add players like Randolph and Marbury and Curry to their heart’s content, but they have no more chance of winning an NBA title behind those guys than Wyc Grousbeck has of winning the 100 meter dash at the 2008 Olympics.

Getting a superstar is the ante for admission to the championship community. And if a GM is serious about winning an NBA title, the single most important order of business is getting an all-time top 25 all-NBA type superstar. Get one of those and you are in business.

Red knew this. He went out and got Russ and Cowens and Bird. In his last great move he made the deal for Lenny Bias, who may have been that caliber of a player. Jerry West got it. His machinations to get Shaq and Kobe were directly from the Red Auerbach playbook.

And now Danny Ainge gets it. Kevin Garnett is in his prime. The hardest and most important part of his job has been done.

If Danny had kept Al, the chances that the Cs would be legit contenders were remote, unless Danny located another superstar to lead the team and have Al follow as the number two guy. Superstars like KG do not grow on trees.

As much as I love Big Al Jefferson, the chances that he will join the top pantheon of NBA legends are slim. At most they are 1 in 5, and that is a stretch. In all likelihood, at best Big Al will have a fine career and make all-star teams, maybe have a career similar to Elton Brand or Paul Pierce. There is nothing wrong with that at all. He will become a very wealthy and accomplished player. But guys like that don’t lead teams to NBA titles.

Guys like Garnett do.

Likewise, as good as the Pierces and Ray Allens of the world are, they are not enough to lead you to the promised land. They are both players on the cusp of being top 87 players for their careers, and likely Hall-of-Famers. They have each gone to two all-NBA teams. But even putting two of them on the same team probably is not sufficient to get you to the conference finals, not to mention within sniffing distance of a crown. That is how hard it is to win an NBA title.

That is why the Garnett deal is so huge for the Cs.

Of course, simply having a player like Garnett is not sufficient to winning a title. There are usually several players of that caliber in the league at any given time and only one title to be won each year. It also takes a little historical luck. The surrounding cast, chemistry and coaching are crucial ingredients that must be added to the superstar to produce a title.

This is Danny’s challenge now as GM.

As for surrounding cast, it needs to be broken into two parts: The next two guys and everyone else.

In addition to being led by all-time superstars, most NBA champions and contenders have a second player who is also a top 50 or top 87 all-time player. Only a handful of champions have been won by teams with only one top 87 player. Another way to put this is that when teams have a superstar and two other players who rank in the league’s top 25 for a particular season, they almost always do extremely well. -- 44 of the last 51 NBA champions had at least two players from the top 87 list in their starting line-up or serious rotation, and 19 of 51 NBA champions had at least three players from the top 87 list in their starting line-ups or serious rotation.

And by historical criteria, Paul Pierce and Ray Allen constitute an ideal supporting cast. Both Pierce and Allen are guys who have been top 20 or top 25 players throughout their careers. They have broached being top 10 players at points in their careers. They are tremendous scorers who along with Garnett will create nightmares for opposing teams. They are right now in their prime. So that part of Ainge’s job has been done.

What Ainge has to do now is fill out the roster. Bob Ryan makes a big deal about this in the Globe on Thursday morning, but it is really small potatoes compared to the taking care of the first three slots on the roster. Get a few competent veteran back-ups at the 1 and the 5 and possibly at the wing and the team should be fine, barring injuries. It is a heck of a lot easier to get a back-up center or point guard than it is to get a superstar or two supporting all-stars in their prime.

The real burden right now falls on Doc Rivers. Generating chemistry and effectiveness falls on his shoulders. Because the stars are in the early 30s, Doc does not have a lot of time to horse around. This is not Houston where Jeff Van Gundy had years to work with Yao and McGrady to develop a contender. Doc has to produce quickly or he will have to be thrown overboard.

If the team in not gelling by February I expect Danny to assume the coaching job. He was a good coach at Phoenix. If need be, he will have to be a good coach in Boston.

The days of the Celtics rebuilding and planning for the future are now officially over. The team is playing for all the marbles right now. With one trade – OK, maybe two trades since the Allen deal was probably necessary to make the KG deal happen -- Danny Ainge has changed the team’s course by 180 degrees.

For Celtic fans it feels great to be going into a season more concerned about the games at hand than who we will draft the following June. It has been a long time coming. And I hope we don’t go back to those dark ages ever again.

Thanks, Danny.

As much as I love Big Al Jefferson, the chances that he will join the top pantheon of NBA legends are slim. At most they are 1 in 5, and that is a stretch. In all likelihood, at best Big Al will have a fine career and make all-star teams, maybe have a career similar to Elton Brand or Paul Pierce. There is nothing wrong with that at all. He will become a very wealthy and accomplished player. But guys like that don’t lead teams to NBA titles.

Guys like Garnett do.

For Celtic fans it feels great to be going into a season more concerned about the games at hand than who we will draft the following June. It has been a long time coming. And I hope we don’t go back to those dark ages ever again.

Posted by Solace:

Posted by kam77:

As much as I love Big Al Jefferson, the chances that he will join the top pantheon of NBA legends are slim. At most they are 1 in 5, and that is a stretch. In all likelihood, at best Big Al will have a fine career and make all-star teams, maybe have a career similar to Elton Brand or Paul Pierce. There is nothing wrong with that at all. He will become a very wealthy and accomplished player. But guys like that don’t lead teams to NBA titles.

Guys like Garnett do.

Despite evidence to the contrary this writer ignores, Garnett hasn't led anybody anywhere out of even the first round if not for the IRON balls of a Sam Cassell and the fluid game of a Latrell Sprewell.

Good article. Despite your claim. The author never claimed the reverse. There are NO guarantees. Getting a superduperstar doesn't guarantee a title; it doesn't even guarantee a playoff birth every year. It's the reverse of what you said. Not having one nearly guarantees that you won't get a title. That's all. That's the Knicks scenario, which is what has been commented on again and again, and ignored again and again by the lovers.

Kam, would you be satisfied if this team peaked at an ECF birth and lost in 7? If you go by history, history dictates that our championship chances are quite slim without a superduperstar. It also indicates that Boston is one of the ~5 teams in the running, because they have one.

Posted by kam77:

[quote]As much as I love Big Al Jefferson, the chances that he will join the top pantheon of NBA legends are slim. At most they are 1 in 5, and that is a stretch. In all likelihood, at best Big Al will have a fine career and make all-star teams, maybe have a career similar to Elton Brand or Paul Pierce. There is nothing wrong with that at all. He will become a very wealthy and accomplished player. But guys like that don’t lead teams to NBA titles.

Guys like Garnett do.

Posted by RemBee76:

Posted by Solace:
Not having one nearly guarantees that you won't get a title. That's all. That's the Knicks scenario, which is what has been commented on again and again, and ignored again and again by the lovers.

Solace, I don't mind the lover vs. hater shorthand in general, but when you erect your straw man arguments based on the principle your post is rarely insightful, let alone close to accurate.

I don't know anyone who disputes the fairly obvious premise, proven year after year, that you need a super-star to win a championship in this league. Me, personally, what I dispute is the claim some make (you might call them "haters") that we would have a super-star by now if we had just done things their way, or that we ever had the option of just sitting tight and sucking until we got one.

In other words, I hear your claims that we could have traded Charlie Ward and Deke & co. for draft picks and cap space. We ain't ignoring the argument, jack, we just aren't believing it.

Posted by Panos:
How about being enough under the cap to sign Wade or Lebron when their contracts expire?
Don't buy that one either, eh?

Posted by Bippity10:

Posted by kam77:

[quote]As much as I love Big Al Jefferson, the chances that he will join the top pantheon of NBA legends are slim. At most they are 1 in 5, and that is a stretch. In all likelihood, at best Big Al will have a fine career and make all-star teams, maybe have a career similar to Elton Brand or Paul Pierce. There is nothing wrong with that at all. He will become a very wealthy and accomplished player. But guys like that don’t lead teams to NBA titles.

Guys like Garnett do.

I think he did address that:

Of course, simply having a player like Garnett is not sufficient to winning a title. There are usually several players of that caliber in the league at any given time and only one title to be won each year. It also takes a little historical luck. The surrounding cast, chemistry and coaching are crucial ingredients that must be added to the superstar to produce a title.

Posted by RemBee76:

In other words, I hear your claims that we could have traded Charlie Ward and Deke & co. for draft picks and cap space. We ain't ignoring the argument, jack, we just aren't believing it.

Posted by RemBee76:

Posted by Solace:
Not having one nearly guarantees that you won't get a title. That's all. That's the Knicks scenario, which is what has been commented on again and again, and ignored again and again by the lovers.

Solace, I don't mind the lover vs. hater shorthand in general, but when you erect your straw man arguments based on the principle your post is rarely insightful, let alone close to accurate.

I don't know anyone who disputes the fairly obvious premise, proven year after year, that you need a super-star to win a championship in this league. Me, personally, what I dispute is the claim some make (you might call them "haters") that we would have a super-star by now if we had just done things their way, or that we ever had the option of just sitting tight and sucking until we got one.

Posted by RemBee76:

In other words, I hear your claims that we could have traded Charlie Ward and Deke & co. for draft picks and cap space. We ain't ignoring the argument, jack, we just aren't believing it.