While I was watching the ESPYs on Sunday night, my thoughts concerning the Boston Celtics ‘team’ were revived.
During the acceptance speech for the “Best Championship Team” award, Ray Allen summarized how all of the players came from different teams, and still came together during the season.
As much as I love the idea of “Ubuntu” and KG and company coming together for a two- or three-year run, I could not appreciate them.
The Celtics, with their acquisitions of Ray Allen and KG through trades and walk-ons such as James Posey (who has already left), Sam Cassell, and Eddie House, simply cannot be the emblematic idea of team.
As a longtime Timberwolves fan, I find myself constantly reflecting on the magical '03-04 season when Minnesota finally got out of the first round and made it to the Western Conference Finals, where they lost to the Lakers.
Today's Must Reads
Admittedly, my hyprocrisy shines through, as Latrell Sprewell and Sam Cassell were major factors of that season.
Any true Wolves fan will remember that series as one in which the Wolves made Gary Payton look like the Payton of old, as injuries to various point guards resulted in 12th man Darrick Martin averaging 25 minutes per game.
That Lakers team, which grouped together an aging Karl Malone and Payton with Kobe Bryant and Shaq, was a truly unlikable team.
The Detroit Pistons were thought of as a more ideal team, but they admittedly acquired Rasheed Wallace during the season.
Has the concept of the truly ideal team as one which drafts and develops the majority of its roster disappeared as quickly as the notion of a player spending his whole career with one team?
Critics would be quick to point at the Spurs, with their core of Duncan, Ginobili, and Parker—yet even they hugely benefited from Michael Finley and Robert Horry.
Sadly, in 21st-century sports, it is the Celtics—who managed their salary cap and acquired the right one or two-year mercenaries—who are in fact the perfect representation of their era.
comments (11) write a comment »
write a new comment
about 1 month ago
Sorry, Adam, that the Celtics don't represent your definition of a "team", or that you cannot appreciate them. Please tell me then, what formula you can appreciate? There is no "team" in its truest from still in existence no matter the sport.
I'm not a Celts fan (although it's easy to become one) but I know they have spent years rebuilding, and apparently, were not very good at it. They were good when it came to the draft, however, which in turn worked beautifully for them. Given the climate of professional sports today, with free agency, I believe the Celtics pulled off the masterful and should be congratulated. As if there are so many other appealing options in todays' marketplace. ??
Regardless of how a team is pulled together, players still must work as a team. Veterans who have little left to play for but a championship can be rewarded. This team proved that selflessly, and I think fans of the game should be proud and inspired; not perpetually critical. God, what next?
about 1 month ago
You Celtics Hater!!!!
about 1 month ago
Adam, I don't see how you can claim that Boston won all because of money and not because they were a team. We saw in the playoffs how the Celtics came together as the true definition of team. Even through the struggles in the early rounds, nobody was pointing fingers, nobody putting another teammate down. And against the Lakers, the Celtics played as one unit, on both ends of the court, meshing together perfectly. They HAD to come together as a team, because each member of the Big 3 were used to doing it all themselves and now they had to pass the ball off to the next guy. They were used to being the "Kobe" of their team, if you will. But they realized that no one player is bigger than his franchise and they knew that if they were to succeed, they'd have to defer to their teammates. I watched this team all year long, and the way that they played together as one was a beautiful thing to watch.
from about 1 month ago
I appreciate the feedback as it made me reconsider but still maintain some of my points. I misclicked but my reply to your comment is followed as an additional comment.
about 1 month ago
Frankly I would have been a Celtics hater if it wasn’t for KG. Of the 16 players who played for the Celtics this year, just six of them played minutes for the team last year. With the other Celtics fans I talked too, they had a hard time adjusting to the fact it was a team of practically entirely new faces whether it was drafted players, Allen and KG who were acquired in trades, or mercenaries. Mercenaries while a little harsh are the perfect term for it. If they truly were as much of a team as you say, James Posey would have stuck around instead of jumping ship the first chance he got.
The idea that the team “came together” during the season is one I dispute. Any group of players, whether it is the Celtics of ’08 or the Knicks of ’08 can “come together” when they are amassing one of the best records in the NBA in recent memory and best +/- as well. That said, the big 3 did defer which is to be commended although not that surprising considering KG, Pierce, and to a certain extent Allen had done that throughout their careers.
I easily accept the fact I can’t have my ideal team where the entirety of the core group was drafted by one team. However, having a core group of like four out of the starting five was with the team for at least 2 seasons is closer to my idea of the team. Teams like the Spurs and Pistons are closer to my ideal image of the team, and better embody a “team” more so than the Celtics of ’08.
Switching gears a little bit, this analogy works well with other sports. While baseball I without a true salary cap, you can find ample comparisons. Take the Yankees for example. One frequent heard criticism about the recent Yankees is that they bought their team, which is obviously true. It is also said the reason they can’t win World Series now is not because they don’t have “true Yankees” like Paul O’Neil or the little guys who get it done like Scott Brosius and A-Rod is mercilessly criticized. Instead it’s simply because they lacked in pitching and winning the World Series is simply not that easy with 30 teams.
Ideally the window was 2-3 years to win a championship with the big 3, and it was truly amazing that they got it done this year. Had they lost to the Pistons like I originally predicted at the beginning of the season, I could have easily been more of a Celtics supporter because they would have been even closer to my image of a team. Thinking ahead to next year I do expect them to at least make it to the Eastern Conference finals, so it should be another great year for Celtics fans.
about 1 month ago
So, if the Celtics lost to the Pistons they would have fit nicely into your description of a team?
Huh? Please reread your last paragraph!
So, because they won, they somehow are not a team. You would have been supporting their losing efforts, not the fact that they would have been considered a team. Let's be honest here. You're probably a Pistons fan, or just not a fan of the Celtics. You'll have to attempt now to retain any credibility you may have had regarding teams, and explain FULLY what your definition of a "team" constitutes.
Hmmm....sounds like sour grapes!
from about 1 month ago
Ok, point taken. I may not have explained myself as clearly as I could have regarding the last paragraph. As of this moment, the recent Celtics will be remembered for the ’08 season, had they lost and won in ’09 the ’09 team would have been closer to my image of the ideal team where the core sticks around for more than a season. If they somehow manage to win in ’09 or ’10 then they will be remembered for a three year stretch and not simply a one year performance.
My utopian idea of a team is one that drafts a majority of its players and has a core that has been around that fans have seen develop and grow over the course of more than one season. In this sporting era the keys to win a championship are having an owner who is willing to spend and making a few correct selections of free agents and trades. Recognizing this my utopian team is not a realistic option in today’s sporting world, so my definition of a team would be as I stated briefly above one that has a majority of its starting five, maybe half its bench for more than one season and demonstrates a lot of the qualities the Celtics of ’08 did.
All of my negative feelings towards the Celtics came toward the media and others announcing they were the perfect concept of a team because they dove for loose balls, deferred, played team defense, hung out outside of practice while somehow forgetting they are a spitting image of a Yankee-like team which succeeded with a collection of mercenary players for one season. It was the same reason the Malone-Payton-Shaq-Kobe Lakers were ripped and it seemed entirely hypocritical to me.
Before accusing me of having sour grapes, I would like to reiterate the fact I am a diehard KG fan from Minneapolis and was extremely happy when the Celtics won solely because of KG. It was not until after I took a step back and let some time pass when I could asses the Celtics from a realistic perspective. It was then I came to my conclusions and the ESPY award for best team motivated me to finally write down what I had been thinking about for a while.
from about 1 month ago
Adam wrote: "My utopian idea of a team is one that drafts a majority of its players and has a core that has been around that fans have seen develop and grow over the course of more than one season."
Three of five Celtics starters last season fit your "utopian idea of a team", having been drafted and developed by the organization for more than one season: Rajon Rondo, Kendrick Perkins, Paul Pierce. According to my limited understanding of math, 3 out of 5 is a majority. So, why does the 2007-08 version of the Celtics not represent a "true" team? They met your newly expressed criteria...
Again, your criteria for determining what constitutes a team is sketchy at best. Is it purely longevity with an organization? Does a player also have to play their entire career with that organization to be considered part of the team? At what point (one year, two years, three years, etc.) does a player become part of a team according to your criteria? You seem to imply that two years is your threshold, but all of this starts to sound rather arbitrary.
about 1 month ago
Okay Adam,
Thanks for the explanation.
You must still hate the Yankees then, huh? Or is it that these overpaid players have now been together long enough, that if they should win, you would now consider them a team?
Is there really a team out there that fits your description? Maybe the Tampa Bay Rays are a good example, but still, an exception today and definitely not the rule.
What's most unfortunate is that no matter how this group came together, there are still critics (you) that need to find SOMETHING negative in what would otherwise be considered an impressive and inspirational season.
I'm sorry you cannot see that and are too consumed with a utopian idea of "team" that hinders what they've accomplished in a world of free agency where very few athletes stay in one place for long.
I applaud them! I have a feeling if they had lost, you would have nothing to criticize.
Unfortunately, some people are only truly happy when they are complaining.
Congratulations to the Boston Celtics and their fans for a memorable season!
from about 1 month ago
In my description of a team, I would say the minimum begins at two years experience of the majority of the starting five and about half of it's bench. It is admittedly arbitrary but those are minimums which helps my case. The Celtics depended on yes, a majority of their starting five, and substantially less than half it's bench. They meet my bare minimum criteria which is a far cry from the perfection status the media has given them. Of course the Celtics will be remembered for the big 3 which had they been assembled in a non-Boston team would not have received the same status of greatness. It was very reminiscent of the Lakers team of 03-04 for me which got ripped because they lost and it was said they weren't a true team. Had the Celtics lost they would have gotten the same criticism of that Lakers team, so I had to point it out.
My main point of this article was to expand the debate on what constitutes a team and explore the Celtics within that perspective. The Yankees are an interesting team in this context. While they are extremely overpaid, they are becomming a semblance of a team more now than ever before with the likes of Jeter, Posada, Cano, Pettite, Joba, Kennedy/Hughes, etc.
about 1 month ago
The Celtics are a perfect example of a true team. How many times do you see big stars get together and not be able to make it work because of their egos. They worked completely as a unit, and did whatever was necessary to win. Paul Pierce has been their not just 2 years but since 1999. KG, Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, and everyone else on the team including the coaches are likable. They don't get big suspensions or their players get arrested. Don't blame the Celtics for not doing it your way, if you ran the team they'd be they'd be looking scouting prospects while the playoffs were going on.
write a new comment