All star teams rarely win anything, and teams almost never win the first year after major roster changes. In all of pro sports, the Marlins are the only ones that spring to mind that have had any ability to win right away after going on a shopping spree. Adding personnel only increases the chances that the team will implode from the expectations and the pressure. They've got nobody that has any kind of history of winning anything on that team.
They're not even close to a lock. If those two sign on they have too many people to do one thing... shoot the ball. That's all they have besides Garnett are guys who shoot the ball. No defense, no experienced PG, no bench... just shoot first guys. That team would more than likely be behind the Bulls, and possibly the Pistons and Cavs.
Actually, if you could somehow meld the Celtics' and Cavaliers' rosters, you would have a pretty decent team on both ends of the floor.
After the Finals, I don't believe that the Cavaliers are capable of winning the EC next year. Even if you hold your opponent to zero, your team still has to score at least one point to win the game. Obviously, that is hyperbole, but we all saw the same series, right? (I realize that the Spurs are the best defensive team in the league, but come on...)
To me the Pistons are the real key to the East. If they play to their true capability, it should be a lock. (IMHO, the Spurs and Pistons probably should have played for the championship every year since 2003.) With Saunders, we expected defensive intensity to lapse and scoring to increase. At times last season, the Pistons still struggled offensively. If we could predict which Pistons team will show up, then I think we could more or less predict how the whole EC will shake out.
The Bulls are starting to look pretty good by default, but I don't believe in their offense, either. Without any real post presence, the Bulls lack flexibility and easy scoring opportunities.
All of the teams favored in the East routinely have major scoring droughts, to the point that they are sometimes never really in a position to win a critical game. (The Pistons aren't quite that bad off, yet.) The Celtics should not have that problem. However, they will need big games from all three of their stars just to stay close with that "defense." As others have mentioned, it usually takes a full season for major roster changes to work out; sometimes it never happens at all (read: 2004 Lakers).
In the final analysis, Miller would help all but the most elite teams. I feel very confident that he would not cause chemistry problems. If Miller were willing to be a bench player/three point specialist, then he would obviously be better option than your typical 8th-12th man. I really don't think that's debatable. You can criticize his defense all you want (and you should when comparing him to the best guards of all time), but he is not a defensive liability when compared to your typical 8th-12th man.
The question for the Celtics isn't "is Miller THE solution?" but instead, "can we fill a roster spot with a Reggie Miller willing to play for virtually nothing?" If the answer to the latter is yes, then it's a great move. If not, then no big deal either way.
As for Reggie playing for another team, I doubt it. He has always made it clear that he would not go this route and would retire as a Pacer. However, as a lifelong Pacer fan, I could accept Miller going to the Celtics. (Becuase of Larry Bird, there are significant numbers of Boston fans in Indiana anyway.) It's not like we're talking the Lakers or Knicks here. I would prefer if he stayed a Pacer for life, but I wouldn't hold something like this against him, either.
Don't get me wrong, i love the Bulls team. In fact i have predicted them to be in the Finals for the last 2 years but they seem to run into the wrong team at the wrong time in the playoffs.
But consider your logic like this. If the Celtics sign Hudson and Miller to go along with KG, Pierce, Allen, Olowokandi and 6 spares they will have 3 great players and 3 other good players and an inexperience bench. Which sounds like another Run and Gun team we all know and hate, the Suns. Now i am not comparing the PG situation to the Suns but if you were to put the Suns in the East they would win 70 games. So would the Mavs and Spurs.
So i am pretty confident the Celtics could win at least 55 games in the East with the aforementioned lineup. And 55 wins will get you the top seed in the East.
Last year the Pistons won 53 games and had the top seed. ONly 1 other team won 50 games, Cleveland. And while finishing with the top record in your conference does not gaurantee you a trip to the Finals it certainly helps to have a game 7 on your own court if needed.
If the Celtics get those other 2 players, tell me who has an easier road to the Finals in these 2 groups:
Celtics, Bulls, Cleveland, Detroit, Heat, Raptors
and/or
Spurs, Mavs, Suns, Rockets, Denver, Jazz
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote