# Bye Mr. Blount, Mr. LaFrentz?



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

> Boston Celtics, who are expected to waive either Raef LaFrentz or Mark Blount under the league's amnesty provision.


http://www.orlandosentinel.com/spor...5aug07,0,7794381.column?page=2&coll=orl-magic

That's quite a shock for me considering we're about 10 million under the lux tax. Is Danny already thinking about Al's pay day?


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

This could happen after a major trade where we would get more salary and move into luxury tax territory, although I'm not sure why Ainge would do this as LaFrentz and Blount would still count against the cap.


----------



## KJay (Sep 22, 2002)

has ainge made much sense this offseason? not to me


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

KJay said:


> has ainge made much sense this offseason? not to me


His moves so far this offseason have made perfect sense.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

No they haven't. Selecting Gerald Green and Ryan Gomes were obvious choices. In my opinion, the Scalabrine signing was horrible. I won't comment on the Antoine trade seeing as that we don't know what other offers Ainge was getting for Walker.


----------



## Richie Rich (May 23, 2003)

Causeway said:


> His moves so far this offseason have made perfect sense.



yeah they really have


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Richie Rich said:


> yeah they really have


Please explain signing Brian Scalabrine for five years, fifteen million dollars.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Also, why give Orien Greene and Ryan Gomes part of the MLE when they would've been satisfyed with the maximum rookie offer?


----------



## AUNDRE (Jul 11, 2005)

looks like they want to get a top lottery pick :laugh:


----------



## Anima (Jun 3, 2003)

Maybe thats why Blount isn't in Waltham?


----------



## Delontes Herpes (May 11, 2005)

this is probably just another dumb sportswriter who has no idea what he's talking about.

the management is too cheap to exceed the luxury tax threshold. neither of these guys are getting cut.

ainge's moves this offseason have made plenty of sense. so they signed orien, gomes, and scalabrine to multi year deals. scalabrine played 21 minutes a game for a playoff team last year, he's a hard worker, a good character guy, and like danny he is a butt buddy with the brain doc.

orien and gomes probably aren't going to see much of the floor this year, but with multi year deals ainge is able to get a decent look at these 2 guys before he has to decide whether to resign them or let them go. they are getting paid peanuts.

you don't have to agree with his offseason moves but they certainly make sense. cutting raef or blount would not.


----------



## Richie Rich (May 23, 2003)

Delontes Herpes said:


> this is probably just another dumb sportswriter who has no idea what he's talking about.
> 
> the management is too cheap to exceed the luxury tax threshold. neither of these guys are getting cut.
> 
> ...




and this sums my point up


there is a difference between agreeing and making sense, some of us do not realize that...


----------



## DWest Superstar (Jun 30, 2005)

Anima said:


> Maybe thats why Blount isn't in Waltham?


He does not show up for games why practice?


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

Gerald Green said:


> He does not show up for games why practice?


:rofl: :clap:


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Delontes Herpes said:


> this is probably just another dumb sportswriter who has no idea what he's talking about.
> 
> the management is too cheap to exceed the luxury tax threshold. neither of these guys are getting cut.
> 
> ...


Exactly. Premier you bring up the 5 years 15 million more than I used to bring up Walker. Or at least close enough.

People talk about Scabs like he got Antoine Walkers contract (speaking of). The Scabs signing makes sense.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Oh really? We could've gotten the same type of player for the veteran's minimum.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Really. Please give me an example of "the same type of player" we could have so easily gotten for the vet minimum.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Walter McCarty.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

Causeway said:


> Delontes Herpes said:
> 
> 
> > this is probably just another dumb sportswriter who has no idea what he's talking about.
> ...



I hope that the both of you know that Veal played 21 minutes at PF on a team that did not have a power forward and actually went stretches with a Center playing at that position. Should I also mention that the fans called it a "nightmare."


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

Premier said:


> Walter McCarty.


We should still get Walter.

Veal + Walter = Tommy's Wet Dream.

Speaking of the guy, he's interested in playing with the Rockets...


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Premier said:


> Walter McCarty.


Walter "I need more playing time and I want out of Boston" McCarty? Try again.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

On the topic of Scalabrine, 

​


> Scalabrine has plenty to offer​ *
> By Christopher L. Gasper, Globe Staff | August 3, 2005*
> 
> WALTHAM -- Brian Scalabrine is used to being discounted as a basketball player. He was cut from his high school team as a freshman, drafted in the second round out of Southern Cal in 2001, and has spent most of his first four seasons in the NBA as a backup.
> ...


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> ''He makes cuts. He takes charges. He boxes out."


What a stud.


----------



## Flava_D (Apr 22, 2005)

> ''He makes cuts. He takes charges. He boxes out."





P-Dub34 said:


> What a stud.


Kinda makes him the anti-walker huh? (not that i didn't love walker, but he rarely did any of these things...maybe boxing out occasionally)


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Flava_D said:


> Kinda makes him the anti-walker huh?


Exactly! :banana: 

of course the obvious come back is going to be "yes he is the anti-Walker because Scabs has no skills". However our young impressionable guys will learn more good habits from Scabs than they would have from Chuck It Up And Duck Walker.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

He shoots a lower percentage than Walker.

This is too funny.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Premier said:


> He shoots a lower percentage than Walker.
> 
> This is too funny.


His contract is also about 40 million and a year less. Now THAT is too funny.

41% vs 39%. Neither of those number are anything to write home about. Walkers % _is_ "higher" than Scabs but that's not too impressive.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Am I comparing their contracts and saying I would have 52,000,000 dollar Walker over 15,000,000 dollar Scalabrine? Me? I would have the 925,000 dollar McCarty over both.

I was responding to your "skills" comment.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

Honestly, I keep hearing about how good of a locker room presence Scalabrine is, and how hard he works, and such, and it's supposed to be a "special" thing. Well, here's the thing...if Scalabrine doesn't work his *** off, and have a good attitude, he's nowhere near good enough to stick in the NBA. He's not a special player, even in terms of his work ethic/attitude. He's just doing what he has to do to stick in the NBA.



> I would have the 925,000 dollar McCarty over both.


Amen.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

If by saying Walker has a higher FG % than Scabs you are saying Walker has more skills - it's not saying much.

And Walter bluntly stated he wanted more time and wanted out of Boston. And I think his game is crap - worse than Scabs. Why would we want him back?


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

P-Dub34 said:


> Honestly, I keep hearing about how good of a locker room presence Scalabrine is, and how hard he works, and such, and it's supposed to be a "special" thing. Well, here's the thing...if Scalabrine doesn't work his *** off, and have a good attitude, he's nowhere near good enough to stick in the NBA. He's not a special player, even in terms of his work ethic/attitude. He's just doing what he has to do to stick in the NBA.


There are plenty of lazy bad attitude scrubs with NBA contracts.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> There are plenty of lazy bad attitude scrubs with NBA contracts.


Brian Scalabrine is out of the league if he doesn't "box out" and is a locker room cancer.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

P-Dub34 said:


> Brian Scalabrine is out of the league if he doesn't "box out" and is a locker room cancer.


Maybe. But he doesn't. He busts his *** and has a great attitude. We could use some of that around here.

No masked cursing.

- Premier


----------



## vandyke (Jan 8, 2004)

I think that is just speculation on this Orlando writer's part by thinking that we would waive either Blount or LaFrentz which I don't think we will do because you still have to pay them so you might as well keep them and see what you get. You know what you will get from LaFrentz probably 12/7 and Blount is the unknown it depends on his attitude but I was actually going to start a new thread but I will just put it here, how about a trade with Orlando where we would send Blount, part of the trade exception and cash to pay for the trade kicker, for Christie whom Orlando doesn't want anyway and then we cut Christie, so instead of cutting Blount and eating a $37 million dollar contract we trade him for Christie and eat $8 million instead.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> He busts his *** and has a great attitude. We could use some of that around here.


This is true.

It'd be even better if he had some skill.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

P-Dub34 said:


> This is true.
> 
> It'd be even better if he had some skill.


He does. Some.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

Causeway said:


> If by saying Walker has a higher FG % than Scabs you are saying Walker has more skills - it's not saying much.
> 
> And Walter bluntly stated he wanted more time and wanted out of Boston. And I think his game is crap - worse than Scabs. Why would we want him back?


Prem gave him 4 minutes in another thread...and you want more for him, but are complaining about Walters.  I'd rather give Al and Perk the PF minutes...or move Raef to PF while Perk is in there.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

vandyke said:


> Blount, part of the trade exception and cash to pay for the trade kicker, for Christie


Apparently you can't trade the exception with a player...there's a need for a 3rd team.


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

Premier said:


> This could happen after a major trade where we would get more salary and move into luxury tax territory, although I'm not sure why Ainge would do this as LaFrentz and Blount would still count against the cap.


The Celts would still have to pay him the remainder of his contract but it would not count against the cap, that's the whole point of doing it.


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

Premier said:


> Walter McCarty.


Walter McCarty wanted out, so he wasn't an option so that's not a fair choice, and sadly, Veal is better than Walter.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

whiterhino said:


> The Celts would still have to pay him the remainder of his contract *but it would not count against the cap, that's the whole point of doing it*.




incorrect...it still counts against the cap...but you dont have to pay the luxury tax on it...for example you cant cut someone to get under the cap...you will still be at the same payroll...but you would not have to pay the extra luxury tax


----------



## agoo (Jun 1, 2003)

Can we cut Veal now?


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Well, we can trade him after December 15th.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> Can we cut Veal now?


It's too bad he passed the physical.


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> incorrect...it still counts against the cap...but you dont have to pay the luxury tax on it...for example you cant cut someone to get under the cap...you will still be at the same payroll...but you would not have to pay the extra luxury tax


Really??? I misunderstood it then, well that is quite stupid in my opinion.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

whiterhino said:


> Really??? I misunderstood it then, well that is quite stupid in my opinion.


It could save a owner, like Mark Cuban, about 16 million this year and about 50 over the next 3. He could pay for the Celtics from the money he saves.


----------

