i mean the lakers put themselves at the center of this and they also got their asses handed to them but the pacers without their best player.

as far as the celtics, it's pretty evident they couldn't keep the roster from last year. any team would have to consolidate and ainge's philosophy is always consolidate. not sure where the comparison lies here. the celtics don't have the minutes or cap space to keep tatum, brown, irving, hayward, smart and everyone together. the lakers could, if they felt like it, have lebron+kuzma+hart+ball+ingram going forward. i am not saying they should but it isn't an analogous situation to boston's at all.

the fallacy with boston is the usual "false sum" thinking. people thought their overachieving in the playoffs could last and simply absorb two established stars and get another 45 points/14 assists/10 rebounds out of them. it doesn't work that way in a team sport, obviously.