# What will DA do?



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

...if anything, to make this team relevant while Pierce is still here? The other thread got me thinking - the Wally/Ricky trade doesn't make sense unless Ainge is trying to build something while Pierce is still in his prime. So my questions to you are:

1) will Ainge make moves to become serious while Pierce is still here?

2) What moves will these be? The only chips we have are young guys and picks.

3) Danny Ainge sucks, I don't want to answer seriously to this topic.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

There really isn't anything else they can do shy of a Pierce trade. Right now their roster is divided between high salary/long term contracts and rookie scale contracts. The only two players in between those extremes are the (at present) untradable & indigestible Veal & Spotted Dickau. Their rookie scale contracts, except for Jefferson's, are all for low first round picks & second round picks, and even Big Al's is a low money non-lottery deal. Even to trade for another rookie scale deal involves packaging two or three of their young players together. Their other possible asset, a low lottery pick from LA has been rendered void by Bryant's spectacular play this year, because that pick will now end up in Phoenix. If LA had missed the postseason and Boston got the 13th/14th pick as a result, they might have been able to flip it to Detroit or Phoenix for a better future pick, but that shot's gone too. That leaves their long term/high salary contracts as trade bait, and two of those three deals are untradable. That leaves Pierce as their only tradable asset. Sad to say, but there it is. Presuming Garnett is not dealt to either New York or Chicago, Pierce will probably be a Bull next year.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

ehmunro said:


> Pierce will probably be a Bull next year.


...and for the right to take Adam Morrison with the Knicks pick.


----------



## PatBateman (May 26, 2003)

I think they REALLY, REALLY need to focus on developing their young talent. In particular, I would like to see WAYYYYYYYY more minutes given to Perk and Tony Allen. It is also very important to bring along the two Green<e>s and let them do a trial by fire. 

I am not sold on Delonte West yet. His numbers aren't bad at all, actually, but for some reason he just doesn't seem like a great shooter to me.

As for Al Jefferson, the guy just does not have "it." He'll be a really good 6th/7th man backing up Ryan Gomes.

West
Pierce
Wally
Gomes
Perk

Allen
AJ


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Premier said:


> ...and for the right to take Adam Morrison with the Knicks pick.


Thankfully we'll be spared that indignity, I hope. Let's put it this way, if the Bulls choose Adam Morrison, we'll know that Pierce will be traded there July 2nd. If not, it will be another deal later in the summer. As of now the Bulls are over the cap, and don't have the salary to match up with Pierce outside Tyson Chandler, but TC's a BYC player until 7/1/07, so unless a third team's involved, a Pierce to Chicago deal can't happen until the start of free agent season. Otherwise I see Chicago taking the best big man available in hopes of using him to entice Minnesota into a Garnett trade.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

If Ainge was going to trade Pierce, he should've done it sometime this year in order to a) get the most value and b) get a higher pick.

Also, if DA is planning to trade Pierce, the Wally trade officially makes NO sense.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Then they're standing pat. Because there are no moves to make. If there's going to be a trade, it has to be Pierce because they don't have anything else left. Unless you think that Thomas will trade Jalen Rose and Channing Frye for Raef Lafrentz Pierce has to win with the teammates he has, and I agree, they're spinning their wheels as is. If they stand pat he'll leave in 2008 to play for a contender.


----------



## Attila (Jul 23, 2003)

P-Dub34 said:


> Also, if DA is planning to trade Pierce, the Wally trade officially makes NO sense.


 I don't know, Pierce and Wally are both 3's. I suppose if they Pierce for a 2, then I could see why they made the move.


----------



## P2TheTruth34 (May 25, 2003)

Attila said:


> I don't know, Pierce and Wally are both 3's. I suppose if they Pierce for a 2, then I could see why they made the move.


those guys can both easily play the 2 spot.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Wally is too slow to be a shooting guard.


----------



## PatBateman (May 26, 2003)

I don't understand why people think Pierce will be moved? I'd say the chances are very slim. It is apparent that they want him to be the face of this franchise for many years to come and are trying to add pieces around him. I think that is the right plan, but it won't get you anywhere with the way that the Celtics, especially Doc Rivers, develop young talent. Seriously, it would take about 52 NASA scientists to figure out some rhyme or reason to Doc's rotations, not to mention why Scalabrine ever gets off the bench for more than 4-6 minutes a game.


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

Paul is not being traded, the Wally trade proved they have made their decision and they are sticking with Paul. Tony Allen was not named as part of the "core" by Danny.....he is trade bait to me. The "core" he named was Paul, Wally, Perk, Delonte, Al, Ryan and Raef. I think they could easily get rid of Raef at this point if they put him in a package with TA and a draft pick etc...I think we could get some solid help, we don't need stars, just solid guys.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

They have no way of adding pieces. They can't sign any full MLE deals without busting the budget in 2008-09 (and threatening $100 million in payroll expenses, luxury tax inclusive). The only possible trade left is Pierce. So what you see is what you get, a team stuck in the bottom half of the Eastern conference. And that's why Pierce will be gone, one way or another, in two years.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

If we get Morrison I'm going on live TV, nationally televised game, and sit in the middle of the court and cry...with my jersey over my head.

And I'll grow one of those awful mustaches.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

If we trade Pierce, in order to get Morrison aka Wally Szczerbiak Jr....


ugh....


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

Well I disagree, I think a lot of teams are interested in a healthy Tony Allen and a 1st round draft pick that we most certainly don't need........Raef is the salary and we have fringe guys like Scal, Dickau, and Orienn that can be added if needed to match salaries. What I think this team needs the most is a veteran pass first point guard and for Delonte to become the 6th man. I'm not sure who I think would work, not a superstar, just a solid guy like Brevin Knight or Luke Ridnour. Honestly, at this point I'm not totally adversarial to putting Al in a deal if it brings us a true PG because I like our lineup if it's
Vet Passing PG
Paul
Wally
Ryan
Perk

6th Man Delonte

Bench
Gerald
Whoever else is left

By the way I'm not giving up on Al, but if it was the right deal, I just don't think he's untouchable anymore.


----------



## DWest Superstar (Jun 30, 2005)

Do you really think West would be benched for Brevin Knight?


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

DWest Superstar said:


> Do you really think West would be benched for Brevin Knight?




uhhhhh....YEA...brevin knight is MILES ahead of west as a pg...i mean its not even close...and if u would like to disagree please give me proof cuz heres mine...knight already has 48 games this year where hes had 7 or more assists...MANY of then being 10 or more...delonte has 13 games this years with 7 or more assists...one of them being 10...there is no comparison when ur looking at whos a better pg...none


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

DWest Superstar said:


> Do you really think West would be benched for Brevin Knight?


Uh, yeah, quicker than I can blink my eyes, SERIOUSLY!


----------



## P2TheTruth34 (May 25, 2003)

Lets get Steve Blake for some garbage so the dude can run the uptempo offense. Hes nasty at controlling the flow, and he can shoot the rock. If we could get him for cheap hell motha ****in yeah.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

whiterhino said:


> Well I disagree, I think a lot of teams are interested in a healthy Tony Allen and a 1st round draft pick that we most certainly don't need........Raef is the salary and we have fringe guys like Scal, Dickau, and Orienn that can be added if needed to match salaries. What I think this team needs the most is a veteran pass first point guard and for Delonte to become the 6th man. I'm not sure who I think would work, not a superstar, just a solid guy like Brevin Knight or Luke Ridnour. Honestly, at this point I'm not totally adversarial to putting Al in a deal if it brings us a true PG because I like our lineup if it's
> Vet Passing PG
> Paul
> Wally
> ...


Lafrentz makes nearly $36 million over the next three years, and is a rapidly declining player. How many teams are willing to deal impact players for shooting guards with shooting problems (both literally and metaphorically) and low lottery picks in weak drafts and take back a $35 million deal in the bargain? Basically, if they're dealing Lafrentz then they're paying a premium to get rid of him, and all they're getting back is cheaper flotsam.


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

ehmunro said:


> Lafrentz makes nearly $36 million over the next three years, and is a rapidly declining player. How many teams are willing to deal impact players for shooting guards with shooting problems (both literally and metaphorically) and low lottery picks in weak drafts and take back a $35 million deal in the bargain? Basically, if they're dealing Lafrentz then they're paying a premium to get rid of him, and all they're getting back is cheaper flotsam.


There is a way to get a deal done if a team wants young talents bad enough and there is always Al too which many teams would bite at, although I'm hesitant to deal him at this point I almost think if it came between him and Gerald right now I'd keep Gerald but that could change on a dime.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

You cannot move LaFrentz's contract offering just Tony Allen and a first-round pick, unless you want to assume the contract of another albatross.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

Premier said:


> You cannot move LaFrentz's contract offering just Tony Allen and a first-round pick, unless you want to assume the contract of another albatross.


We won't do that, we'll wait until Raef's on his last year, _then_ we'll trade him for a 5 year 60 million injured bum. 

(Take that Causeway, you Pro-Danny freak. :clown: )


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

whiterhino said:


> There is a way to get a deal done if a team wants young talents bad enough and there is always Al too which many teams would bite at, although I'm hesitant to deal him at this point I almost think if it came between him and Gerald right now I'd keep Gerald but that could change on a dime.


Except that Allen and whomever gets selected 8-11 in the 2006 pool are roleplayer-level talent. Is a team really going to pay $35 million and deal an impact player for a couple of roleplayers?


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

ehmunro said:


> Except that Allen and whomever gets selected 8-11 in the 2006 pool are roleplayer-level talent. Is a team really going to pay $35 million and deal an impact player for a couple of roleplayers?


Depends, is Danny Ainge the man in charge of the other team?


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

aquaitious said:


> Depends, is Danny Ainge the man in charge of the other team?


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

aquaitious said:


> We won't do that, we'll wait until Raef's on his last year, _then_ we'll trade him for a 5 year 60 million injured bum.
> 
> (Take that Causeway, you Pro-Danny freak. :clown: )


I know deep down you love Danny. And when you come out with it I will not throw these old posts back at you :yes: :biggrin: 

Your friend on the other hand wishes we had Thomas here instead of him being in NY. What a wonderful job he's doing in NY. Now _that's_ :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

aquaitious said:


> Depends, is Danny Ainge the man in charge of the other team?


Is there any way that Ainge could talk Portland into a trade of Wyc & Company for Paul Allen? Now then we might get somewhere.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Any eccentric billionaire willing to throw a lot of money into a sports franchise with no care of the profit (or even season results) of the team should be fine.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

It's a pity that Mark Cuban wasn't a Bostonian.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

ehmunro said:


> Is there any way that Ainge could talk Portland into a trade of Wyc & Company for Paul Allen? Now then we might get somewhere.


right. Portland is in fantastic shape. Just like your Knicks.


----------



## agoo (Jun 1, 2003)

Causeway said:


> right. Portland is in fantastic shape. Just like your Knicks.


If you have basketball people capable of running a franchise and building a team, the billionaire owners would be quite successful.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

agoo101284 said:


> If you have basketball people capable of running a franchise and building a team, the billionaire owners would be quite successful.


if...and if you have basketball people capable of running a franchise and building a team, the non-billionaire owners could also be quite successful. 

Throwing money at the problem is not always the solution.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

agoo101284 said:


> If you have basketball people capable of running a franchise and building a team, the billionaire owners would be quite successful.


Yes, that simple thought is generally lost on morons. I mean, I am so glad that we have Wyc & Co. rather than Mark Cuban. I mean, those poor Mavericks fans, suffering through a season challenging for an NBA title, while we fortunate Celtics fans bask in the glory of having the tenth best team in the East, and can look forward to challenging for the ninth best record next year. And, the last time I checked, the Jailblazers have been torn down, rebuilt, and challenged twice since the Celtics were last any good. I'm so glad we don't have Paul Allen as an owner.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

ehmunro said:


> Yes, that simple thought is generally lost on morons.


Once again what I and many others have come to expect from you. 



ehmunro said:


> I mean, I am so glad that we have Wyc & Co. rather than Mark Cuban.


You said Paul Allen first not Mark Cuban. At least stick to your weak story. All billionaire owners are not the same. See your main man: James Dolan. This simple thought is generally lost on morons.


----------



## cgcatsfan (Jun 10, 2005)

We'll ditch at least 3 of 5 of the following: Lafrentz/Allen/Greene/Dickau/Scalabrine in the offseason. We have a first round draft pick to sweeten the pot. Allen and Greene would be somewhat attractive, and Al might go too. Oluwkandi will just plain be gone. 

I think Brevin Knight would be a good get for us. 
No way did we get Szerbiak as a replacement for Paul. 
That doesn't even make sense. Paul is staying.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

cgcatsfan said:


> We'll ditch at least 3 of 5 of the following: Lafrentz/Allen/Greene/Dickau/Scalabrine in the offseason. We have a first round draft pick to sweeten the pot. Allen and Greene would be somewhat attractive, and Al might go too. Oluwkandi will just plain be gone.
> 
> I think Brevin Knight would be a good get for us.
> No way did we get Szerbiak as a replacement for Paul.
> That doesn't even make sense. Paul is staying.


Unless they can find someone to give them an expiring deal for Lafrentz or Szczerbiak then Pierce will be gone. After next year they will have to re-sign Perkins, the going rate for centers these days is $8-$10 million/year. The year after they have to re-sign West, Jefferson, Gomes, & Pierce (plus Allen & Greene, but odds are they won't be here). On a conservative basis that would mean taking a $15-$20 million luxury tax hit for a team that might be no better than 6th-8th in the Eastern Conference. Does anyone with an IQ over over 50 see Wyc & Co. opening their wallets like that? This is where billionaire owners really help, though idiots will whine and pout that it doesn't matter.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

ehmunro said:


> Does anyone with an IQ over over 50 see Wyc & Co. opening their wallets like that? This is where billionaire owners really help,* though idiots will whine and pout * that it doesn't matter.


idiots.
morons.
******.
******.
etc.
blah blah blah.

your contribution to hoops talk in here is truly deep and impressive. Unlike you I do not wish we were the Knicks.


----------



## AMΣRICAN GOD™ (Jun 4, 2005)

I wouldn't be too surprised to see DA sign Veal to a max contract. 

Really though, I'm thinking maybe we trade Raef and TA to IND for Fred Jones. He'd be a Ricky Davis type player only w/o the mad hops and the 'tude.


----------



## P2TheTruth34 (May 25, 2003)

I obviously don't want an owner that runs his team into nowhere by getting every overpaid player available. However, I certainly wouldn't mind The Celtics having a higher payroll but only for the right players. We already have a couple guys who don't really warrant their contracts (Raef, Wally?, Kandi). However, there is noway you can say that with 2 equal front offices, one with money to spend and one with none, that the one that doesn't spend is better? Absolutely Not, But if the team with the most money goes out and buys the first decent looking player out there it isn't going to work. You need to combine patience with the budget and having tons of money helps (ask the Yankees and Red Sox). Does that mean the highest payroll equals wins, obviously not (Knicks) but if done correctly it is certainly one facet of the salary cap era that can be used to help.


----------



## cgcatsfan (Jun 10, 2005)

ehmunro said:


> Unless they can find someone to give them an expiring deal for Lafrentz or Szczerbiak then Pierce will be gone. After next year they will have to re-sign Perkins, the going rate for centers these days is $8-$10 million/year. The year after they have to re-sign West, Jefferson, Gomes, & Pierce (plus Allen & Greene, but odds are they won't be here). On a conservative basis that would mean taking a $15-$20 million luxury tax hit for a team that might be no better than 6th-8th in the Eastern Conference. Does anyone with an IQ over over 50 see Wyc & Co. opening their wallets like that? This is where billionaire owners really help, though idiots will whine and pout that it doesn't matter.


So your position is that they'll let Paul go to keep West, Jefferson, Perkins etc. 
Maybe you should see the thread where they're trying to sign Paul to an extension. 

Your pointless rudeness notwithstanding, you're dead wrong.


----------



## DWest Superstar (Jun 30, 2005)

> YEA...brevin knight is MILES ahead of west as a pg...


So is Moochie Norris does not mean he will produce more


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

DWest Superstar said:


> So is Moochie Norris does not mean he will produce more


I don't know what's wrong with this guy, but I'd be honored to have him in Green.


----------



## DWest Superstar (Jun 30, 2005)

aquaitious said:


> I don't know what's wrong with this guy, but I'd be honored to have him in Green.


He's ugly


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

DWest Superstar said:


> He's ugly


His game isn't.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> I don't know what's wrong with this guy, but I'd be honored to have him in Green.


Dwest would turn down a Nash for LaFrentz swap because it would mean less PT for West.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

DWest Superstar said:


> So is Moochie Norris does not mean he will produce more



what the **** kind of arguement is this??? moochie norris isnt on the same planet as brevin knight when it comes to being a pg...ugh


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

cgcatsfan said:


> So your position is that they'll let Paul go to keep West, Jefferson, Perkins etc.
> Maybe you should see the thread where they're trying to sign Paul to an extension.


Well thank you for assuming that I can't read. I can see you come from the edit aqua



cgcatsfan said:


> Your pointless rudeness notwithstanding, you're dead wrong.


Is your position that they're going to spend $80 million+ to keep this squad together or that they're going to let Jefferson (and possibly West), you know, the guys they're promoting as the new faces of the franchise, walk? Because that will be the other alternative. As for ownership's warm and fuzzy promises, these are the same people that put through one of the largest ticket hikes in league history, specifically because the payroll was high, and they needed the extra money for a free agent signing, even as they were ordering Ainge to cut the payroll by $5 million out of the other side of their mouths. Let me just say that I put zero faith in their words. Last summer, when they made the Walker deal, they promised Celtics fans that the deal was made so that they would have an above-MLE traded player exception this summer to use on a free agent (a scenario that I warmly welcomed). And then after pocketing all the season ticket renewal cash went and squandered enough of the TPE on Dan Dickau to make the balance worthless (in spite of the fact that Spotted Dickau and Moobs Scalabrine _combined_ make less than the MLE and the TPE didn't need to be squandered at all). Put me in the "I'll believe it when I see it" camp.


----------



## DWest Superstar (Jun 30, 2005)

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> what the **** kind of arguement is this??? moochie norris isnt on the same planet as brevin knight when it comes to being a pg...ugh


Lets try this again, you said Knight is more advanced at the PG spot than West, which may be true but someone like Moochie Norris is also a polished PG, did we mention skill level? I think not.


----------



## DWest Superstar (Jun 30, 2005)

P-Dub34 said:


> Dwest would turn down a Nash for LaFrentz swap because it would mean less PT for West.


Yeh


----------



## Delontes Herpes (May 11, 2005)

It's a pretty simple concept...if someone else (i.e. the owners) wants to pay to keep a competent player on my team, I'm all for it.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

aquaitious said:


> I don't know what's wrong with this guy, but I'd be honored to have him in Green.


Only if we can trade Spotted Dickau & Moobs Scalabrine to get him.


----------



## cgcatsfan (Jun 10, 2005)

ehmunro said:


> Well thank you for assuming that I can't read. I can see you come from the Causeway school of arrogant presumption.
> 
> 
> ehmunro said:
> ...


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

ehmunro said:


> There really isn't anything else they can do shy of a Pierce trade. Right now their roster is divided between high salary/long term contracts and rookie scale contracts. The only two players in between those extremes *are the (at present) untradable & indigestible Veal & Spotted Dickau.* Their rookie scale contracts, except for Jefferson's, are all for low first round picks & second round picks, and even Big Al's is a low money non-lottery deal. Even to trade for another rookie scale deal involves packaging two or three of their young players together. Their other possible asset, a low lottery pick from LA has been rendered void by Bryant's spectacular play this year, because that pick will now end up in Phoenix. If LA had missed the postseason and Boston got the 13th/14th pick as a result, they might have been able to flip it to Detroit or Phoenix for a better future pick, but that shot's gone too. That leaves their long term/high salary contracts as trade bait, and two of those three deals are untradable. That leaves Pierce as their only tradable asset. Sad to say, but there it is. Presuming Garnett is not dealt to either New York or Chicago, Pierce will probably be a Bull next year.


:rofl:


----------



## LX (Oct 14, 2004)

Thread's closed. 

The topic at hand is no longer being discussed.

EDIT

Thread to be re-opened soon after soon after all unnecessary posts are trashed. - *Premier*


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

The thread is now open. All posts pertaining to the topic must be relevant _and_ basketball-related [that is, without any statement that is deemed to be baiting or attacking another poster]. Too often good discussion are side-tracked due to personal grudges. If you wish to not converse with a fellow poster, please put them on your ignore list or simply, do not reply to their posts. Basically, follow the BBB guidelines.

- *Premier*


----------

