I love retrospective analyses because they don't mean much but are fun to read. However, if you use such analysis to cast a verdict upon the present, then my sympathy fades away. If your analysis is full of obvious bias, then my love turns into hate.
An opinion piece on Green Street by Jerry Spar dissects Ainge's helm, giving him credit for 2007-08 season but naming him "the problem" (well, he adds a question mark to the end Foxnews style so that he doesn't say it) for the rest. He goes through the trades, the draft picks and his judgment always comes down to "Well, Celtics didn't win, so he didn't do enough." (paraphrased)
Talk to this, @#$%.
I'm not pro-Ainge necessarily, and I can count one mistake per season (some being huge, some not so much), but reading too much into things is unfair. For example, it's one thing to say that Ainge made a mistake in drafting Giddens, but it's another to compare him to Asik, Jordan or Pekovic and say "Look what could have been." There's no ...