So what's worse: losing a series at full strength or losing a series without your biggest and most important star?

[msgkings322]

First off not losing is of course better than both.

If you're full strength and lose you at least get to see the best version of your team and you're competitive and have some hope

If your best guy is out you know your chances are basically shot so you stress less and you can always think 'well at full strength we had it'

I think in the end on principle you should always prefer less injuries to more...the injury thing just gives you a comforting silver lining with the loss

 

[tlance]

First off not losing is of course better than both.

If you're full strength and lose you at least get to see the best version of your team and you're competitive and have some hope

If your best guy is out you know your chances are basically shot so you stress less and you can always think 'well at full strength we had it'

I think in the end on principle you should always prefer less injuries to more...the injury thing just gives you a comforting silver lining with the loss

Losing at full strength is better.

You see what you have.

I really hate the latest trend of “well, you lost. Time to blow it up!” For teams that are theoretically close, but come up short.

Building a winning core takes time in the NBA. Very few teams break through on their 2nd or 3rd chance.

 

[realityball]

Losing at full strength is better.

You see what you have.

I really hate the latest trend of “well, you lost. Time to blow it up!” For teams that are theoretically close, but come up short.

Building a winning core takes time in the NBA. Very few teams break through on their 2nd or 3rd chance.

I’m sorta relieved Knicks were doing what they were doing by beating the Celtics before Tatum went down … it would have been so much more frustrating losing the series because of an injury like that

… on top of the sadness for a great player to get hurt

 

[shopson67]

Placing the blame for a loss on injuries can cloud the team's judgement and not pursue changes that need to happen regardless. I would prefer losing at full strength. Easier to pinpoint where you need to improve and target that in the offseason.

 

[trojanfan12]

Losing at full strength is better.

You see what you have.

I really hate the latest trend of “well, you lost. Time to blow it up!” For teams that are theoretically close, but come up short.

Building a winning core takes time in the NBA. Very few teams break through on their 2nd or 3rd chance.

This

/thread.

 

[BigKen]

Losing this series is the best thing that could happen to the Celtics. Now they will move a few players and retool for the future. They've boxed themselves into a corner salary wise. My guess? Porzingis, Brown, Horford(retire) will be with other teams before the draft is over or shortly thereafter.

 

[thunderc]

Losing this series is the best thing that could happen to the Celtics. Now they will move a few players and retool for the future. They've boxed themselves into a corner salary wise. My guess? Porzingis, Brown, Horford(retire) will be with other teams before the draft is over or shortly thereafter.

I see no way Brown is moved if Tatum is going to miss part of next season but we will see.

 

[shopson67]

Losing this series is the best thing that could happen to the Celtics. Now they will move a few players and retool for the future. They've boxed themselves into a corner salary wise. My guess? Porzingis, Brown, Horford(retire) will be with other teams before the draft is over or shortly thereafter.

Didn't Horford already publicly say he wanted to play another year, preferably with Boston but not only Boston?

Regardless, I wouldn't say it's the best thing. The best thing is another ring. It's also not the best thing to endure a crippling injury to your franchise player.

 

[shopson67]

I see no way Brown is moved if Tatum is going to miss part of next season but we will see.

Plus moving the others (Jrue, Porzingis) won't bring huge returns. Decent, but not franchise altering. Jrue is paid pretty well through his age 37 season and Zinger is always nicked up at minimum.

 

[ducky]

Depends.

If you are a young team, it might be better to lose without you star and come away from a series with the impression that THAT was the only reason you lost.

If you are an old team, it might give you false hope for next year.

Example: Couple years back, the Wolves lost to the Nuggets without Naz and Jaden. Would have been a different series with them. And they proved that to the Nuggets the following year.