Mailbagged

Well, I think we here at the Green Room have finally awoken up from our lottery-induced coma. But five days later, it still doesn't seem real. But it is. We can do two things: beg the doctor to put us back under, or gather the shattered pieces of our hope and try to glue them back together. I'm still not sure what option I prefer, but I bought some rubber cement and put the doc on speed dial.

Anyway, it's been a while since we've opened the Green Room mailbag, and the events of Black Tuesday ushered in an avalanche of e-mails, so let's get right to it:

The lottery has got to go. The worst teams need to be assured the best players, albeit young. Four times out of 24 the worst team has gotten the first pick. That is just stupid. - Jim McCurdy

Jesse, Take a chill pill ! I will take either Jeff Green or Horford with the #5 pick. It's easy to blame Doc/Danny for the travesty that is the current NBA " Lottery"; some smiling idiot picking ping pong balls out of a machine. David Stern deserves the blame for this moronic system! – Peter

The NBA Lottery is just another reason why the NBA has become a joke. – Jon

The shame is not on the C's or the fans. It should be with the NBA for having such a deplorable system for their draft. Lest we forget, teams and fans in Memphis and Milwaukee got the shaft last night along with us. The NBA lottery is the biggest travesty in sports. - Glenn Oja

While last night was miserable if you are a Celtics fan, let's not fall into Red Sox style self-flagellation. The Celtics and the NBA got what they deserved last night. If team owners, general managers, coaches and fans believe that a system where failing and mediocrity should be rewarded by a "secret" lottery (with a fewer than 40% chance of winning!), then roll the dice rock star. I certainly would not want my future decided by a lottery. The NBA has fooled us into believing that the lottery is a democracy based on statistical probability. This is supposedly designed to preserve the integrity of the game while at the same time snookering us into believing that the best 19-year-old in America will translate into hoisting a championship banner to the rafters. How many times has that happened? Since 1980, only two teams have drafted the number one player and hoisted a banner to the rafters, Houston (Olajuwon) and San Antonio (Duncan and Robinson). As a matter-of-fact only one other number one draft pick won a championship (Shaq) and that was with a team that didn't draft him.

But let's face it: Pro basketball is not and should not be a democracy. If you stink you should get the best player. The Oakland Raiders got JaMarcus Russell for a reason! - Keith

These are just a sampling of the "NBA lottery has to go!" emails. And I'll be honest here, I don't necessarily agree with them (although Keith offers a good reason why teams shouldn't rely solely on lottery luck to change their fortunes.)

In a perfect world, the worst teams should have the best chance to get better. But does a team's record from the previous season necessarily mean that if all things are equal, they'd be the worst team the following season with all the same players? As we saw in the 2006-07 NBA season, injuries (real or exaggerated) played a big role in determining the records of the bottom-feeders. Boston and Milwaukee were the most snake-bitten, Memphis played much of their season without their best player (and played in a much tougher conference) … Charlotte was without their game-changing center for a long while. With all the injuries, it's really hard to determine who really is the worst team. Would San Antonio have been the second-worst team in '96-'97 had Robinson not gone down?

So, a straight-up, record-based draft system would present just as many problems to the "parity" aspect as the current lottery. The lottery, while far from a perfect system, hedges such "lost seasons" for teams that aren't really that bad by not guaranteeing them an instant reward.

Also, what happened on Tuesday was a statistical anomaly, one that put the spotlight squarely on the unfairness of the lottery. But that's what it was… a statistical anomaly. Will it happen the same way in five of the next 10 years? I'd be surprised if it happened in five of the next 100. More times than not, the team with one of the three worst records will pick first, and one-in-four years, the worst team will get the top pick. (Although in the years since the lottery has been instituted, it hasn't yet been the case, but it can still be considered a "small sample size.")

But as many have said, in time it will all even out. The statistics say so. That doesn't lessen the pain of this year's result, with the prizes on the line the most valuable in quite some time. Maybe the odds need to be tweaked a little to lessen the likelihood of the statistical anomaly that occurred this past Tuesday.

But basketball, more than any other sport, is a game where a single player can make the biggest difference. In the NFL, one player, even if he's the best in the league, only plays in half of the game. You draft a JaMarcus Russell, it's still not going to improve your defense one bit. It is much, much harder to improve with a single player in football than basketball. As such, you do have to maintain the "integrity" of the sport somewhat by not giving extra incentive to be the worst team in the league.

As we saw this year, some teams will stop at nothing to improve their chances in the lottery. And there was still a hit to the integrity of competition, to some degree. But if the incentive to have the worst record was that much greater, if draft position was guaranteed, can't you see the tanking getting 10 times worse? As much as the tanking this past year was hard to watch, it wasn't nearly as blatant as it could have been. If losing a single game guaranteed you'd get Oden or Durant, where's the incentive to allow your team to compete to win? There wouldn't be one. That's why the lottery exists. It helps your odds but guarantees nothing. Until a system can be conjured that rewards the bad teams that compete and penalizes the better teams that don't try as hard to win, the lottery system is going to have to do.

I think you're off-base with the assertion that "all eggs in one basket" was the strategy. At the point Pierce got injured, it became a gameplan to some degree, but the concept seems born more out of opportunity than desperation, which this entry suggests. I'm not certain Ainge is on the right track. But if you have any degree of faith remaining in his ability, you are disappointed, not devastated, with this result. Unlike with Pitino, this could not realistically have been a plan, four years in the making, to require a top pick in Ainge's blueprint for success. If it turns out to be the case, than Ainge has failed in his position. But we won't know that until we see evidence of what takes place on the court this season. – Craig

Well, considering the prizes that awaited, I think devastated is the appropriate word. As I said, this isn't the end of the franchise, but it's a big blow, and one that Ainge and the owners have to work extra hard to overcome. Can it be done? I hope so. Do I have faith in their ability to get it done? Let's just say that I haven't seen enough evidence to give me confidence. We have been hearing of Ainge's "plan" since he walked onto the parquet in that 2003 playoff series against the Nets, and although a "youth movement" can be considered a "plan" to an extent, it hasn't been successful thus far. Sure, Ainge has plucked some decent players with his drafting positions, although I would hardly say he's been the best in the league in that regard (which he pretty much has to be for such a "plan" to succeed).

But it is not only drafting that they have to do well, but trades (something Ainge has been pretty miserable at), and shelling out the dough to bring in available players that can help. That’s something ownership has not shown they are willing to do. So I'm somewhat pessimistic. But maybe losing the lottery will force them to change their ways. If not, it's hard to not see a major shakeup in the near future, one that will be warranted if the C's continue to flounder.

Can we get some recognition from the ownership about how bad things are? It seems like Soviet-style propaganda from Danny about the team, about Doc, etc. How about a dose of truth? Things are bad and they will not get better for a while. Or a plan -- some sort of coherent vision…

Does the ownership just not get how bad things are? – Mike

I was actually surprised by the amount of disappointment demonstrated by Wyc, Danny and Doc at the lottery results. Sure, there was some spin going on, mostly from Ainge, but for the most part I think they avoided, as much as they could, blowing smoke up Celtics fans' collective, um, backsides. Ainge and Wyc showed frustration and disappointment, at least as much as you'll ever see from them publicly. And Doc Rivers looking like he was going to be physically ill pretty much said all that needed to be said in regards to how much of a blow the lottery result was to everyone in Celticdom.

Still, you can't expect ownership of management to be harbingers of doomsday. They can't come out and say "we're screwed!" It's their jobs to put a positive spin on things, to keep hope alive, to keep people wanting to come to Celtics games. You can't really fault them for that. But Celtics fans aren't stupid. They know that if the team continues on a downward spiral, it will only be a matter of time before the arena become half-empty. And I think many Celtics fans are at the end of their patience with the current state of things. If things don't improve soon, they will go away. So it doesn't matter what kind of spin the Celtics' brain trust puts on things, they are at the point where they have to put their money where their mouth is.

You guys in Boston just don't get it. It isn't the "team" that stinks. It's the coach! You had a bigger disappointment happen a few days earlier than the draft when you signed Doc Rivers to an extended contract. I don't get it. Is this how you get better, by re-signing a loser? I can attest to him being a loser. I'm a lifetime season ticket holder of the Orlando Magic. He was a total bum here, and he was and is a bum there. I just had to come to the Globe to see the reaction. Oh, I guess the look on Doc’s face when No. 5 was called should have said it all. Good luck. You don't deserve it, but you sure did sign up for it. – Gary

I wasn't happy with the Doc extension. I thought like many other Celtic fans that he should have been forced to coach the team in the last year of his contract, nothing guaranteed. I don't buy how the whole "lame-duck" situation can negatively affect a team. If he gets it done, he's rewarded, if he doesn't, sayonara. That being said, at least they only gave him the minimum one-year extension. I think that still places Doc on notice. If things don't improve he's the first on the firing line.

Of course, with the strong backing Doc has gotten from Danny, it doesn't seem likely that a quick hook would be an option, so that places Danny even more on the hot seat to give Doc a team better suited to win now. It's not an ideal situation, but with Doc's seemingly unwarranted extension, the onus for success is on both of these guys more than ever.

I cannot blame the Celtics for putting the fans through anything, in fact it seemed obvious to me that the players played their [butts] off every game, there was no "going for the lottery" about the team. The media, through sports shows on TV and sports pages in the papers were the ones pumping up the "Oden or Durant?" thing. So, I do not blame the Celtics at all, I blame the media -- and now in true and tried fashion, the media will turn on the Celtics. It is desperately disappointing for Celtics fans, but what can you do? Make the best choice and hope for some improvement next year. - Rory

I never felt that the players on the floor were intentionally tanking games. That was one of the more likable aspects of the group. But, to be sure, Doc Rivers did not put the players he had available to him in the best positions to win games. Was he throwing games? I wouldn't go that far. But he wasn't pulling out all the stops to grab every available victory. He made it clear his intention was to get guys playing time and experience at the expense of winning. Some call it developing the kids, others call it tanking. Truthfully, it was probably for a little bit of both. But it doesn't mean the coach and management shouldn't catch come heat for they way things played out.

Your post reminds me of some of the knuckleheads that post such junk on the fan blog.

We need a point guard that can shoot and a veteran that can play and we are right back in the thick of things in the East. And by the way I am tired of hearing how weak the East is. Who’s won lately, Detroit and Miami, right? If we can add a player like Marion to play with Paul and Jeff watch out. Stop acting like many teams are sorry, most teams with a addition of a couple of good players can compete. - Gary W. Carter

Well, I can't disagree that I may in fact be a " knucklehead," but I will address your points:

1. You can say the same about probably 20 players drafted in the past three years. Al has three years of NBA experience. Of course he'd go high. Even though our beloved Tommy uttered this statement before the lottery, I still don't get the point. Al isn't in this draft. He has become a very good player in his third year in the NBA. How many players from this years draft will we be saying the same thing about three years from now? I'm sure more than a few.
2. Danny has been here four years and every player on the roster he has brought in with the exception of Pierce. If he doesn't have the chips to play with (as he has been saying he does for a few years now), then it's his own fault.
3. I think you forgot a 3.
4. I don't doubt Danny's ability to pick gems in the second round of the draft. It's been his strongest quality. It may end up being a very good player, a rotation stalwart. It won't, however, be a player that instantly turns around the direction of the franchise.
5. I'm perfectly willing to see what Ainge can do between now and the start of the season to improve this team, and I'm also willing to see how an uninjured group of players he has assembled can play under Doc Rivers. Mostly because I have no choice. But the first month of the season will be the most telling. I think we will definitely know by the All Star break if Ainge has done the job. For the sake of the team, I hope he does.

I agree with your sentiments regarding another point guard to spell Rondo and a veteran (I'd love to have them be the same guy – just like I wanted last year), and I'm all for doing whatever it takes this side of Pierce and Jefferson to get Marion, but I don't think that's likely. As for the East, well, I don't know how you can say that it isn't about five times worse than the West right now, unless you haven't watched those West Coast teams in the past couple of years. The Heat got lucky with a good match up against a team that imploded. Detroit is the only really good team. The West is stacked, top to bottom, much, much more than the East. And after the draft, it's only going to get worse for the East. I don't know of any other NBA fans that think otherwise.

Can we trade Pierce for Oden? Throw in a couple more losers to make the deal a good one! – Matt

The draft lottery is over. I think it’s unfair, but good teams overcome bad luck. If Oden is the guy trade for the rights for the first pick.

The point is that every player has a price and what the Celtics are willing to give up in order to get a franchise center. – Tom

Look, the Celtics could offer to build a time machine, change the history of basketball so that there are 16 banners hanging in Portland's Rose Garden, throw in every current Celtic available and offer to pay their salaries, and there's still not a chance in Hades that Portland gives up the top pick.

This is about as un-tradeable a pick that has ever existed in the history of sports. Celtics fans need to get used to it: there is nothing, nothing they can do to pry one of those top-two picks from Portland or Seattle. Accept it. It's much easier that way.

Awful. Only way you can feel. But I can't say I'm too surprised. I've been preparing for this letdown (well, something like 3rd or maybe 4th; I wasn't expecting the absolute worst-case scenario) for about a month now, and if we get Al Horford or Yi Jianlian, the Celtics will still be an Eastern contender next year, and if they don't trade Pierce (which, oh so sadly, they probably should now, just for his sake; he doesn't deserve to play in such mediocrity anymore, he's too good and plays too hard), could be a contender in two years, as in make it to the Finals and most likely lose to whichever loaded West team wins the conference (and there's about nine or so that could now). – Adam

I admire your optimism, and may share it one day, but I can't say I'm ready to buy any stock in the company that makes Celtics championship banners right now. But, as you point out, the bright side to all of this is that the C's play in the Eastern conference, so there is less of a hill to climb than, say, Memphis. Anything can happen, and I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that the Celts can be a playoff team in the next couple of years. But they are still a long way from a championship, and isn't that what Ainge's goal was when he broke up those playoff teams he inherited?