The Boston Celtics are in better shape now than they were in 2003. That is the argument most often cited when people defend Danny Ainge and its something I've grown tired of hearing (almost as much as I'm sick of Ainge bashers saying we could have drafted Randy Foye). While Ainge's drafting has been solid, the rest of his moves have not helped the Celtics whatsoever. The team in 2003, while aging, was not in as dire a situation as some like to claim.
Nevermind the fact that guys Ainge traded were then moved for better veterans (Antoine for Jason Terry and a pick; Battie for Anderson Varejao, Drew Gooden, and Steven Hunter), had we made no moves aside from resigning Tony Battie/Antoine Walker and picking up Marcus Banks' option while drafting the same pieces that Ainge drafted, our team would look like this:
- C: Battie, Perkins
- PF: Walker, Jefferson
- SF: Gomes*, Bobby Jones** Reed
- SG: Pierce, Green
- PG: Banks, Rondo**
* While some people might want to point out that we got the pick with which we selected Gomes in the Eric Williams/Tony Battie trade, it should be noted that that was actually our own pick, one we had dealt to Cleveland for Jumaine Jones.
** Say our team reached the same level of mediocrity that it had in the past, we would have had a mid-level draft pick and probably woudl have gotten Rajon Rondo with it. Our second round pick, however, would have been much higher than the one we traded for. Craig Smith went at our pick (which we dealt in the Wally trade) but seeing as we don't need another PF, I added Bobby Jones, who went the pick after ours.
Now while this team lacks a chunk of the young talent that Ainge lauds, it makes up for it in cap space. Battie, Walker, and Pierce make 8 million dollars less than Ratliff, Wally, and Pierce. Losing the youth we acquired in the Walker trade along with filler from deals (Brian Grant) and Brian Scalabrine, we'd have another 7 million dollars. So while people might say Danny has done such a great job because now we have the young talent to package with Wally or Ratliff to get a top player, they overlook the fact that without Ainge's moves, we would be able to sign a player of that level outright or acquire them without having to match salary in a sign-and-trade. This doesn't even take into account the fact that we would have had cap space earlier than this and could have made moves to bring in talented players in previous off-seasons.
Now, I am in no way saying that this was the best path to take to rebuild the Celtics. I'm just showing that staying the course with the 2003 Celtics might not have been as bad as people say nor would it have us in much worse shape than we are in now. It's essentially West, Allen, and Telfair for 15 million in cap space. Are Wally and Ratliff that much better than Walker and Battie? And which do you choose: West, Allen, and Telfair vs. 15 million in cap space? Before answering that, look at it this way, we could use E-Will's expiring deal and Banks to add Shawn Marion (since Phoenix is looking to cut salary and has shown an interest in Banks). To get Marion today, we'll likely have to deal two of our young guys (Say Ratliff, West, Allen somehow manages to get us Marion). In the end, the only difference is Telfair vs. Antoine (And if we dealt 'Toine for Terry when that deal came about, the difference is Terry vs Telfair). Either way, I just don't see how we're all that much better off now.
----
Now this brings us to our current situation: looking to deal Wally or Ratliff and youth for a veteran. While many people have Iverson in their sights, the truth is that that deal looks less and less likely every day and the remaining prospects are grim. Carlos Boozer, Kenyon Martin, Drew Gooden; those are the names that look available and it's probably take more than we'd want to give up to get them. Larry Hughes? Come on. If a star is dealt, it is usually for an expiring contract or a lotto-level young player, neither of which the Celtics have. Also, in the last decade, there haven't been many trades of young talent for established stars that have worked out for the team getting the veteran. Webber for Richmond. 'Sheed for Strickland. Rip for Stackhouse. JO for Dale Davis. Billups for Kenny. JJ for Rogers. Hughes for Kukoc. Brad Miller/Ron Artest for Jalen Rose. The one trade that I can think of that "worked" was Tony Battie for Nick Van Exel, but even that didn't do much for the Nuggets. If there's ever been a trade of young-for-old that worked, it was a veteran for a draft pick, not for a guy that's already been in the league. And to argue that Wally Szczerbiak or Theo Ratliff will tip the deal in our favor is being comically optimistic. I really don't see many teams trading a star and telling their fans, "It's OK, we'll have Wally for three more years!
The upsetting reality is that, while some people might like to think we're a team chock full of vaunted youth that everyone wants, our young guys don't have more value than the Baby Bulls that Jerry Krause acquired. And the best veteran any of those guys was traded for was PJ Brown.
It's youth-or-bust, right now. The young guys need to either win or at least show actual evidence of their much anticipated "potential" because that's the only way we're going to be getting anything back for them. Unless Danny's been saving up some stroke of the ol' Celtic luck, today's trade will most likely be tomorrow's regret.
