# OT: Celtics 41-9!



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore;_ylt=AkjF1o.rVKu6l4_nt249Fj05nYcB?gid=2007111311

Dang, the Celtics whip the Pacers in Indiana.

6-0!

Ainge really swung for the fences and made clear, decisive actions to "win now" with this group, and its certainly paying early dividends. Ainge really placed himself at risk with his bold off-season moves and embraced the power of the NBA SuperStar, no doubt about it. Celtics fans have to be loving life right now. 

These guys are one of the top teams in the league in defensive efficiency as well! 

http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2008/d_de.htm

Granted, they don't start hanging banners 6 games into the regular season, but the Celtics are the clear favorites to take the East at this point.

Should be a fun team to watch. Good times in Boston!


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

*Re: OT: Celtics 6-0!*



kukoc4ever said:


> http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore;_ylt=AkjF1o.rVKu6l4_nt249Fj05nYcB?gid=2007111311
> 
> Dang, the Celtics whip the Pacers in Indiana.
> 
> ...


[strike]This belongs in the NBA Forum. Or Boston.

Really now.

Scratch that. Moving this to the Around the League Thread.[/strike]


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: OT: Celtics 6-0!*

Well, I mean it is clearly an attempt at making a point about the Bulls...without saying as much.

K4E, when you wanted us to get Gasol, was that saying 'go out and get a superstar'? No, you wanted that player to provide a specific need for the team.



Which Pax did by KEEPING Deng and adding Joe Smith, who is producing at just about the 07-08 Gasolian rate so far. But giving Pax credit on that six games in is heresy, because we're like, the worst team in the league right now.

I personally think both Chicago fans and Boston fans come down to earth shortly, but we'll see.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: OT: Celtics 6-0!*

I remember before the season started, I said that if the Bulls met up against the Celtics in the playoff's that the Bulls would get totally destroyed, people laughed at me and said that the Celtics dont have the Bulls depth and that once the Bulls got to the Celtic bench they would beat them.

:lol:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 6-0!*



DengNabbit said:


> wanted that player to provide a specific need for the team.



A SUPERSTAR player to provide a specific need for the team.

Joe Smith will come back down to Earth or get hurt. Gasol will likely start playing better. Both valid points.

As for the Celtics, KG, Allen and PP are top 30 in the NBA in PER to this point, and KG is the uber-star that we all know he is. If you are banking on these guys regressing, they likely won't, this is close to how they usually play. And they complement each other so well, it will be no surprise if all 3 have more efficient, productive seasons than last year.

The most interesting thing about the Celtics is the defense. I remember reading all summer about how rotten the Celtics D would be. Not true to this point.

It is early... just will be interesting to watch.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 6-0!*



> Have you looked at Boston’s schedule? Unless you count Miami with D-Wade (we don’t) and Orlando (not quite yet), the C’s don’t play any really good teams until December 19, when they have the Pistons. (At home, of course.) Their first real tough road game won’t be until a week and a half later when they go to Utah. And the Celtics don’t play San Antonio until February 10


http://dimemag.com/2007/11/14/steph-infection/


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 6-0!*

The Celtics have already won AT TORONTO (they destroyed us at home) and AT NJ (which we could not do).

They also beat Denver.


If these guys stay healthy, the East is theirs to lose, IMO.

A Pistons / Celtics playoff war would be a matchup I'd like to see.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 6-0!*

Whats your point?

We won't know who they are until they play Phoenix, San An, Dallas, etc...

Denver and Toronto are good teams, but not the elite.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 6-0!*

The Celtics have played the eleventh-toughest schedule in the NBA so far.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/stats/rpi?season=2008&sortColumn=sos

No, no signature wins against any of the Western Conference elites, but they haven't loaded up on patsies the way Utah or Orlando has, either. 

The surprising thing to me is that the two non-Big-3 starters have meshed perfectly, they're getting a nice boost from the bench, and they are a flat-out elite defensive team. Pierce and Allen are flat-out getting the job done on that end: single-digit PERs yielded so far, which is amazing.

I think that not only are they a prohibitive favorite in the East, but that they can play ball with any of the big boys in the West, too. Granted, their window is maybe a couple of seasons more, but it's a real, honest-to-goodness window.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 6-0!*



GB said:


> We won't know who they are until they play Phoenix, San An, Dallas, etc...


Yes, its early.

At this point though, they seem like the class of the East. That could be the Pistons as well though. Perhaps LeBron takes over in the playoffs again. Its going to be a really fun Eastern Conference playoffs. 

Better than the West, who knows?

The amazing thing is the defense. The Celtics are #1 in the NBA in DEF EFF.

http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2008/d_de.htm

(#2 are the Tyson Chandler anchored New Orleans Hornets, but that's another story)


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 6-0!*












> But give him credit: He's got guts. Ainge traded away 10 of his assets, including Al Jefferson and three first-round draft picks, to get Allen and Garnett.


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime?page=dime-071114&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab1pos2



> So as the Celtics roll to a record of 6-0, what could be more satisfying than seeing his new Big Three already making strides toward supplanting Bird, McHale and Parish in the hearts and minds of Celtics fans? You don't need Ainge's brain doctor to tell you how good that must feel.
> 
> Sure, Garnett, Pierce, Allen and Co. are focused on winning the East and ultimately the NBA title. But there is more at stake. There's history, both professional and personal.
> 
> ...


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 6-0!*

Seems that the Celtics were incredibly underrated by this board before the season. So much for the 1.5 years to gell.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

*Re: OT: Celtics 6-0!*

6-0 = larry o'brien trophy!!!:cheers:


----------



## theyoungsrm (May 23, 2003)

*Re: OT: Celtics 6-0!*

its funny how people were getting laughed at for even thinking about projecting the Celts to be elite or even better than the bulls. we drink a little too much kool-aid around these parts


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 6-0!*



theyoungsrm said:


> its funny how people were getting laughed at for even thinking about projecting the Celts to be elite or even better than the bulls. we drink a little too much kool-aid around these parts


Call me when they go 8 for 8 against Dallas, San An, Houston, and Phoenix.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 6-0!*



GB said:


> Call me when they go 8 for 8 against Dallas, San An, Houston, and Phoenix.


Non sequitur alert! (same with the "Larry O'Brien" remark)

I can't think of any posters who claimed the Celtics were a lock to win the title or even make it to the finals.

However, I can think of a lot of posters who said that the Celtics would be hard-pressed to win 45 games, that they'd need a long time to gel, and that they wouldn't pose any meaningful threat to the Bulls in the east.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 6-0!*



ScottMay said:


> Non sequitur alert! (same with the "Larry O'Brien" remark)
> 
> I can't think of any posters who claimed the Celtics were a lock to win the title or even make it to the finals.


No, but plenty seem to be laboring under the delusion that they are an elite team. That has not been established yet.

Garnett, Allen, and Pierce _should_ win the majority of their games against the leagues bottom 22. It's the record against the top ten that tells us where they truly stand.

I have an open mind. But nothing has been proven yet.



> However, I can think of a lot of posters who said that the Celtics would be hard-pressed to win 45 games, that they'd need a long time to gel, and that they wouldn't pose any meaningful threat to the Bulls in the east.


Call all of them on it, and by name. Who are these mysterious posters and what did they say? Don't speak in generalities.


----------



## ozziesoxbulls (Sep 14, 2007)

*Re: OT: Celtics 6-0!*



kukoc4ever said:


> http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore;_ylt=AkjF1o.rVKu6l4_nt249Fj05nYcB?gid=2007111311
> 
> Dang, the Celtics whip the Pacers in Indiana.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bullsky (Jun 11, 2006)

*Re: OT: Celtics 6-0!*

Boston's been impressive thus far, but I don't see this streak lasting long.


----------



## Orange Julius Irving (Jun 28, 2004)

*Re: OT: Celtics 6-0!*

Well, let's be honest about the Celts getting Garnett. Kevin McHale (can we say ex-Celtic) basically bringing the franchise back to respectability with arguably his greatest "assist" to Danny Ainge.

I read on this board all the time about how The Lakers need to get "fair value" for Kobe and to get a Superstar you have to give up a super-star or in the Bulls case 2 or 3 potential stars.

Well, Jefferson = Deng or Hinrich or Gorgon but without any post-season experience under his belt. 

So Ainge got Garnett for allot of nothing. The Bulls probably offered more, but again, McHale being an ex-Celtic figured he'd help out an ex-teammate and move a disgruntled player.

I still say Kobe will be available for a similar price eventually and the Bulls have a chance to get him and make similar moves. 

As for the Celtics, being in Boston I have seen them play plenty and the contrast between them and the Bulls on offense is like night and day. 

The Celts, for the most part, are making crisp passes, behnind the back and no look pass to each other and getting lots of slam dunks by Garnett, 3's by Allen and Pierce is just driving the lane at will. True, Rondo at the point, being only a 2nd year player makes some boneheaded moves, but he can get away with it since the others guys cover up his mistakes.

On the other hand, the Bulls on offense have looked tentatvie, scared at times, overall clueless and have had trouble even making passes many times. For at least 3 guys (Kirk, Ben and Lou) who have played together for 3 years, this shouldn't be happening.

I am just gald that i have some good basketball to watch again here in Boston, since I am not paying for league pass regardless.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: OT: Celtics 6-0!*

They are exceeding my expectations. All they can do is win the games that are on the schedule, which they've done, and which we've failed miserably at doing. Will that trend keep up? I sure hope not. But I'm not going to fault the Celtics at this point for not having played better teams. They have been impressive so far.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 6-0!*

7-0. Miami on Friday who has Wade back (but lost to Seattle tonight)


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

*Re: OT: Celtics 6-0!*

Their in the finals.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

*Re: OT: Celtics 6-0!*



lorgg said:


> Their in the finals.


Not yet.


----------



## calabreseboy (Nov 17, 2004)

*Re: OT: Celtics 6-0!*

I'm sure that the last time I checked there were 82 games in a season...


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 6-0!*

They have 3 star level players. 3 guys you can go to in crunch time. We have none, nada, nil, nothing, zippo, zero, zip, sweet fug all.... 

Paxson made a mistake in loving these complimentary players too much. These comlimentary players need to get it together long enough to sucker some team into unloading a top notch player for two or three of them.


----------



## BullsAttitude (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 7-0!*

Wow, 7-0 means an NBA Championship, right? Well, I remember Dallas going 67-15 last year, dominating the league pretty much and having 2 winning streaks of 13 games or more and what happened to them?

Detroit is the favorite for the East as long as Rasheed Wallace keeps playing the way he is right now. If he implodes, so does the Pistons chances, but he is playing focused and when he does Detroit is dangerous.

Detroit has Rasheed against KG, Prince on Pierce, and Rip on Allen. Rondo has to match up with Billups, not going to happen. Plus, the Pistons bench is deeper this year than last. I still put the Pistons up there in front of the Celtics.

Unless Ainge can get 1 or 2 more veterans to come off the bench, the Celtics are not going to win the East. The Pistons are smarter and deeper then the Celtics, plus they are more playoff tested. Now, if Rasheed implodes during the playoffs again, than yes the Celtics can beat them, but if he keeps playing the way he is now, they will not beat the Pistons.

Remember, regular season does not mean anything.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 7-0!*



BullsAttitude said:


> Wow, 7-0 means an NBA Championship, right? Well, I remember Dallas going 67-15 last year, dominating the league pretty much and having 2 winning streaks of 13 games or more and what happened to them?
> 
> Detroit is the favorite for the East as long as Rasheed Wallace keeps playing the way he is right now. If he implodes, so does the Pistons chances, but he is playing focused and when he does Detroit is dangerous.
> 
> ...


lol, ohh this is what Bulls fans are telling themselves this season, that explains it


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

*Re: OT: Celtics 7-0!*

Mark it down...they'll win it all. Dream Season here we come.


----------



## BullsAttitude (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 7-0!*



Marcus13 said:


> lol, ohh this is what Bulls fans are telling themselves this season, that explains it


Hey Marcus13, No cause I even believed the Heat was better than us last season when they were healthy. We caught them injured in the playoffs and out played them.

I for one was not of the Bulls fans who thought we had a chance to win it all this year. I still think the Bulls are a couple of years away from truly contending. It's a process you have to go through.

If you think the regular season means everything, ask these teams what the regular season did for them.


Phoenix in '05 had the best record, lost to the Spurs in the WCFs.
Detroit had the best record in '06, lost to the Heat in the ECFs.
Dallas had the best record in '07, lost to Golden State in the 1st round.

If I'm correct the last team with the best record in the East to get to the Finals was the Nets in '03. (When the East was at it's WORST)

Pacers had top record in the East, lost to the Pistons in '04.
Heat had top record in the East, lost to the Pistons in '05.
Pistons had top record in the East, lost to the Heat in '06.
Pistons had top record in the East, lost to the Cavs in '07.

So, THE REGULAR SEASON DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING!!!

The Celtics are one of the top teams in the East but I'm not giving them the East crown. The bench needs to improve tremendously come playoff time. 

Let's see, the Celtics have beat the Hapless Wizards who have won 2 games total, beat the Nets twice (once with Carter not playing), beat the Pacers who are on a 3 game losing streak, beat Denver when they were playing out of sync, beat a young Atlanta team and beat Toronto on a last second 3 pointer. Let me crown them now.

I truly believe the Celtics can't beat Detroit and can not beat any of the top 5 Western teams. Detroit lost cause Rasheed did not play like Sheed against Cleveland. If he is focused, they are dangerous, now if he isn't, then yes they are beatable. Actually, I for one believe this is Phoenix's year to take it all.

It's great that basketball excitement is back in Boston, but enjoy it now cause it won't last more than 3 years and when the Celtics HAVE NOT won a title, the big trade will be considered a failure.

If I'm wrong, feed me the crow but I got a feeling I won't be.


----------



## theyoungsrm (May 23, 2003)

*Re: OT: Celtics 7-0!*

Response to Celtics before the season: They aren't good enough win the ECF

Response Now: Even they are, it doesn't mean anything.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 7-0!*

Celtics 8-0!

Star Power!!!! Seems like a pretty good formula.

Miami really came to play. A healthy Wade and a motivated SHAQ. Still, not enough to knock off the mighty Celtics.


----------



## Vivaldi (Nov 12, 2006)

*Re: OT: Celtics 8-0!*

A game Miami should have won btw. I just realized something though, Boston is good, but not unbeatable.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 8-0!*

I don't know why anyone would want to play Boston (in a revitalized HCA) come playoff time. If they get Home Court, they are going to the Finals.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

*Re: OT: Celtics 8-0!*

Thanks for the update. We are all dying to know how Celtics are doing. Thanks again.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 8-0!*



lgtwins said:


> Thanks for the update. We are all dying to know how Celtics are doing. Thanks again.


They're 8-0. They deserve their own thread.

EDIT


I will celebrate for the two of us.


----------



## BullsAttitude (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 8-0!*



HKF said:


> I don't know why anyone would want to play Boston (in a revitalized HCA) come playoff time. If they get Home Court, they are going to the Finals.


Really, I remember Dallas having homecourt against Golden State last year. I remember Phoenix having homecourt against the Spurs. I remember the Heat having homecourt against the Pistons in '05 and vice versa the next year. I remember your Knicks having homecourt against the Bulls in '93 ECFs. Had a 27 game winning streak going into game 5 and lost the series in 6.

The Celtics are good, but the bench is thin and inexperienced as a playoff team. Good teams know how to win on the road in the playoffs. Detroit is a good team and in my eyes the favorite for the East (as long as Rasheed Wallace stays focused).

Plus, KG, Pierce and Allen are all playing heavy minutes so far this season. Unless they realize the NBA season is a marathon, not a sprint. There is a good possibility it will catch up to them come April and May. Remember Detroit in '06?


----------



## ETBulls23 (Nov 16, 2007)

*Re: OT: Celtics 8-0!*



BullsAttitude said:


> Really, I remember Dallas having homecourt against Golden State last year. I remember Phoenix having homecourt against the Spurs. I remember the Heat having homecourt against the Pistons in '05 and vice versa the next year. I remember your Knicks having homecourt against the Bulls in '93 ECFs. Had a 27 game winning streak going into game 5 and lost the series in 6.


Yeah, but you know how people can't wait to tell everyone that "the league is changing, and that you dont' need a center anymore?" Dirk and Nash are two of the "new type" of players. The game is changing, and yet, what WINS has stayed the same.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: OT: Celtics 8-0!*

look man

KG and PIERCE would of been enough to get to the finals in the east...

you're crazy if you think DETRIOT is the team to beat in the east...

Boston owns the east

talent wise, theres no team on their level


----------



## BullsAttitude (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 8-0!*



The ROY said:


> look man
> 
> KG and PIERCE would of been enough to get to the finals in the east...
> 
> ...


So 1-9 they are better talent wise than the Pistons. They are more experienced than the Pistons?

When Prince plays well, he can guard Pierce. Hamilton can guard Allen, and you put Wallace on KG. Now, you truly believe that Rondo is going to outplay Chauncey? Are you crazy? Plus, have you noticed that Rasheed is playing more like his oldself. 

Plus, Detroit has a deeper bench with Jason Maxiell, Jarvis Hayes, Amir Johnson and Flip Murray to name a few.

If you think Boston owns the East, then think that. But after barely beating a Miami team without a fully back to 100% Wade, should tell you something.

If you think I'm crazy, then you must think Jackie MacMullen, you know the female reporter from Boston who has covered the Celtics for years is too, cause she still believes Detroit is the favorite in the East.


----------



## ETBulls23 (Nov 16, 2007)

*Re: OT: Celtics 8-0!*



BullsAttitude said:


> So 1-9 they are better talent wise than the Pistons. They are more experienced than the Pistons?
> 
> When Prince plays well, he can guard Pierce. Hamilton can guard Allen, and you put Wallace on KG. Now, you truly believe that Rondo is going to outplay Chauncey? Are you crazy? Plus, have you noticed that Rasheed is playing more like his oldself.
> 
> ...


Why do people do this? It's like you go down the line and attempt to tie a bunch of matchups and then if you can win one matchup against a role player like Rondo, then Detroit is better. What??

The Celtics hinge on Garnett. He will win his matchup with Rasheed. Rasheed is a nice player, but he's a noticeable notch below Garnett. As for Rondo and Chauncey... Rondo is a role player. The Cs don't rely on him for the things that Detroit NEEDS from Billups. If Rondo just plays good defense and doesn't kill the Cs, then you move on to the next matchup.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 7-0!*



BullsAttitude said:


> Hey Marcus13, No cause I even believed the Heat was better than us last season when they were healthy. We caught them injured in the playoffs and out played them.
> 
> I for one was not of the Bulls fans who thought we had a chance to win it all this year. I still think the Bulls are a couple of years away from truly contending.  It's a process you have to go through.
> 
> ...


Im not mad, it was just an opening for a somewhat amusing joke. Annnd I also agree that the C's arent winning the championship this year. They are a couple of roleplayers away that hopefully they can pick up this offseason. I DO think they can and will win the East though. With that being said, the Eastern playoffs are always random and anything can happen


----------



## BullsAttitude (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 8-0!*



ETBulls23 said:


> Why do people do this? It's like you go down the line and attempt to tie a bunch of matchups and then if you can win one matchup against a role player like Rondo, then Detroit is better. What??
> 
> The Celtics hinge on Garnett. He will win his matchup with Rasheed. Rasheed is a nice player, but he's a noticeable notch below Garnett. As for Rondo and Chauncey... Rondo is a role player. The Cs don't rely on him for the things that Detroit NEEDS from Billups. If Rondo just plays good defense and doesn't kill the Cs, then you move on to the next matchup.


My part is people are all ready to hand the Eastern Conference Crown over to the Celtics just cause they have started the season 8-0.

Yet, people are forgetting it took overtime and a 3 pointer by Ray Allen to beat the Raptors. Also, they barely beat a Heat team that doesn't have a DWade at a 100%.

You know, the Celtics add 2 stars to their lineup and all of sudden they are the team to beat in the East.

People seem to forget that the Pistons have gone to 5 straight Eastern Conference Finals. Went to 2 straight NBA Finals, was a quarter away from repeating.

Lost Ben Wallace and they haven't missed a beat. The reason they lost in '06 to the Heat was the Pistons ran out of a gas. They were so focused on getting the best record during the REGULAR SEASON, that their starters played heavy minutes that season. I remember in one game the Bulls played against them, the Pistons were up 30 and still had Billups and Prince in the game. Flip Saunders has learned the importance of having a good bench. 

The Heat had motivation plus their role players started to hit their stride. The Pistons lost to the Cavs last year because Rasheed was no factor in that series. Everybody knows they were the better team, they knew they were, but yet didn't play like they were and didn't seem to worry when the Cavs tied the series up.

This season, Prince is in his 5th year, steadily improving. Rasheed is fully healthy and playing like his oldself. Plus, the Pistons bench has improved tremendously. Their bench is WAY BETTER than the Celtics, plus the Celtics bench is unproven in the playoffs.

You know, if you all want to crown the Celtics already after 8 games, go ahead, but I believe the NBA season is 82 games long, not 8. The NBA Title is won in June, not November. Plus, come playoff time, whatever happened during the season doesn't matter anymore. The teams that are geared for the Playoffs, such as Detroit, Phoenix, San Antonio, are not playing to go undefeated. They are not playing to prove something during the regular season, they are playing just to get to the 2nd season. They are ready for the playoffs to start cause they know what happens there. This Celtics team does not know.

Garnett is playing rejuvenated cause of his new surroundings. Yes, he is playing inspired and yes he is playing heavy minutes. So is Pierce, so is Allen. They have to for them to win the games. Doc Rivers is doing the exact same thing that Flip Saunders did in '06. Unless he sacrifices some wins to get the bench some experience, it will cost them come April and May.

I truly believe the Celtics know they have to have homecourt for them to at least get to the Finals. Yet, homecourt in the East doesn't mean anything, please see one of the previous posts about that. If you all believe the Celtics are already going to the Finals, then I get the feeling you all haven't been watching the NBA for that long.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: OT: Celtics 8-0!*



BullsAttitude said:


> So 1-9 they are better talent wise than the Pistons. They are more experienced than the Pistons?
> 
> When Prince plays well, he can guard Pierce. Hamilton can guard Allen, and you put Wallace on KG. Now, you truly believe that Rondo is going to outplay Chauncey? Are you crazy? Plus, have you noticed that Rasheed is playing more like his oldself.
> 
> ...


never said they were more experienced than the Pistons..but the Pistons AREN'T the team to beat in the east and they haven't been for a while now.

oh wow..they barely beat Miami...SO? they're not gonna blow everyone out, no matter how good they are...

Glad to know you think Detriot is the favorite...but their window has been closed for SOME time now...


----------



## ETBulls23 (Nov 16, 2007)

*Re: OT: Celtics 8-0!*

In any case, aren't the Celtics markedly better than us? I think a lot of Bulls fans want them to fail because they're yet another example of a GM displaying the balls that Paxson won't display, OR that he can't display cause of Reinsdorf being cheap. If Paxson truly is handcuffed by Reinsdorf then he ought to do the admirable thing and quit. I'm sure he doesn't need the money. I'm sure that if the last two years' moves have really been Reinsdorf, someone will hire him.

Look at the Pistons... the Pistons are an example of YET ANOTHER team with a GM that rolled the dice. He got Wallace when nobody else would touch him. At some point, Paxson needs to pull this kind of move.

As far as knocking the Celtics, yes, you're right, no matter who they are they still have to DO IT. Garnett could tear his knee up tomorrow. But, honestly, don't they remind you of the first threepeat? Their talent is lined up at the 2-3-4 positions (Jordan, Pippen, Grant). Allen is better than Grant but Pippen was better than Pierce. Garnett's physical talent and statistical prowess is as close to Jordan as you will EVER see at the four position. They have solid athletic role players at the one and four, and they're a deep team. How can you knock their formula for success when there might not ever have been a team whose identity was as close to the 91 and 92 Bulls as this team's identity is?

Detroit may win, in a war. I'm willing to bet they won't.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: OT: Celtics 8-0!*



BullsAttitude said:


> My part is people are all ready to hand the Eastern Conference Crown over to the Celtics just cause they have started the season 8-0.
> 
> Yet, people are forgetting it took overtime and a 3 pointer by Ray Allen to beat the Raptors. Also, they barely beat a Heat team that doesn't have a DWade at a 100%.
> 
> ...


It's like your trying HARD to make yourself NOT believe the inevitable.

We've all been watching the NBA for long enough to know this game, no need to go there.

Who cares if they beat the raps by a buzzer 3, they WON, that's the point.

Bottom line, no team in the east compares to them @ this point. Nobody has the firepower they have. 3 future hall of famers and all of em playing great b-ball like they've been together for YEARS.

Miami's not stopping them
Detriot's not stopping them
Cleveland's not stopping them
Chicago's not stopping them
Toronto's not stopping them

Am I ready to hand them the crown of the east? sure am, cuz I know the game and I also realize that our conference is pretty damn WEAK. Celts are the only bonafide powerhouse out here. Is it early? sure, but unless some top tier east team makes a BIG move, the Celts are the team to beat, period.


----------



## ETBulls23 (Nov 16, 2007)

*Re: OT: Celtics 8-0!*

As far as losing close to bad teams as an argument that they aren't that good, I saw Michael Jordan have to put the pedal to the metal to come back against the 96 Grizzlies. Anyone remember that game? Where he had to jump and spin in the air to steal an inbounds pass before inevitably dunking it in a swing that turned out to be crucial, agianst Bryant Reeves and the Vancouver Grizzlies.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

*Re: OT: Celtics 8-1!*

I am waiting how long it will take for K4E to post new Celtics record this time.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

*Re: OT: Celtics 8-1!*

Close one between Orlando and Boston. Statement game for Orlando - proving they're legit, at least so far, IMO.

Celtics lose while shooting 53%.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 8-1!*

rough game. Dwight Howard really controlled KG. Im not as upset as I was earlier so thats all Im going to say. Orlando played very well.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 8-1!*

Dwight Howard is an animal. STAR POWER!

Celtics are on pace to make a run at the 72 win season by MJ's team. Dang.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

*Re: OT: Celtics 8-1!*



kukoc4ever said:


> Dwight Howard is an animal. STAR POWER!
> 
> Celtics are on pace to make a run at the 72 win season by MJ's team. Dang.


Meh. So were the Pistons and Dallas, if I recall correctly.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 8-1!*



King Joseus said:


> Meh. So were the Pistons and Dallas, if I recall correctly.


Yah, they probably won't do it. They are not that good.

But I'd sure rather be 8-1 than 2-7.

The Bulls are deeper (our 10th guy is likely better than theirs, not that our 10th guy plays much at all) and have younger players. That's something to be happy about I guess.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

*Re: OT: Celtics 8-1!*



kukoc4ever said:


> Yah, the probably won't do it. They are not that good.
> 
> But I'd sure rather be 8-1 than 2-7.
> 
> The Bulls are deeper (our 10th guy is likely better than theirs, not that our 10th guy plays much at all) and have younger players. That's something to be happy about I guess.


Never said a word about the Bulls. I'd rather be 3-6, 4-5, anything with more wins than 2-7. It's irrelevant to the Celtics record unless we're playing them.

I don't expect the Celtics to win more 65 games, let alone 72.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 8-1!*



King Joseus said:


> I don't expect the Celtics to win more 65 games, let alone 72.


Yah, its a long season. 60 wins seems about right. But given they are 8-1, it could be higher.

Wow, what a turnaround by Ainge. Still though, if KG (or PP, to a lesser extent) goes down, its real trouble. But, the same was true with MJ back in the day. If the Bulls lost MJ and Pip, that team would have been hurting.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

*Re: OT: Celtics 8-1!*



kukoc4ever said:


> Yah, its a long season. 60 wins seems about right. But given they are 8-1, it could be higher.
> 
> Wow, what a turnaround by Ainge. Still though, if KG goes down, its real trouble. But, the same was true with MJ back in the day. If the Bulls lost MJ and Pip, that team would have been hurting.


Certainly a good turnaround, even if he did have a bit of help from McHale.

I'm not sure if the Celtics can keep their defense at such a high level over the course of the season, or if they can keep this caliber of play up with big minutes for their big three and not wear down. The closing months of the season will be interesting.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 8-1!*



> Heading into Sunday's games, LeBron James, Zydrunas Ilgauskas and Drew Gooden were combining to average 59.5 points, 30 rebounds and 10.3 assists. Almost as good as the Celtics' Big Three, who put their numbers together to average 62 points, 22.6 rebounds and 13.3 assists.



5-5 vs. 8-1 though. Not sure about the strength of schedule.


----------



## BullsAttitude (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 8-0!*



The ROY said:


> It's like your trying HARD to make yourself NOT believe the inevitable.
> 
> We've all been watching the NBA for long enough to know this game, no need to go there.
> 
> ...


Orlando sure looked strong against them, Dwight Howard pretty much tore it up inside against KG. I'm trying hard not to believe the inevitable? Question, then why do they play the game. How bout we stop the season now, just give Boston the Eastern Crown and call it day, how bout it?

I thought it was inevitable last year that Dallas was going to erase the nightmare ending in the NBA Finals. That they were going to finally reach the promise land. Well, what happened there?

Pretty much all we can do is wait for the season to play out and see what happens. I know you might say Orlando almost blew a 20 point lead against the Celtics, well you know what, it doesn't matter, they still beat them.


----------



## BullsAttitude (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 8-0!*



ETBulls23 said:


> As far as losing close to bad teams as an argument that they aren't that good, I saw Michael Jordan have to put the pedal to the metal to come back against the 96 Grizzlies. Anyone remember that game? Where he had to jump and spin in the air to steal an inbounds pass before inevitably dunking it in a swing that turned out to be crucial, agianst Bryant Reeves and the Vancouver Grizzlies.


Actually have that game on tape and is one of my favorite games. The play you are talking about happened after Jordan had gone on his run and pretty much won the game for the Bulls. That dunk was actually the nail in the coffin.

That was one of those classic Jordan games where he was just playing and then a rookie named Derrick Martin started talking trash, telling Jordan he wasn't so great and that he could stop him anytime he wanted to, Brian Winterz couldn't get him out of the game quick enough. He had already pissed Jordan off. That is when Jordan went on to score I believe 23 of his 33 points in the last 10 minutes of the 4th.

After that dunk is when you can see him running by the Grizzlies bench pointing at Derrick Martin and stating once again His Airness proved his point.


----------



## BullsAttitude (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 8-1!*



kukoc4ever said:


> Yah, its a long season. 60 wins seems about right. But given they are 8-1, it could be higher.
> 
> Wow, what a turnaround by Ainge. Still though, if KG (or PP, to a lesser extent) goes down, its real trouble. But, the same was true with MJ back in the day. If the Bulls lost MJ and Pip, that team would have been hurting.


Well, not entirely true. Remember, the Bulls without Jordan in 93-94' won 55 games. Then, Pip was out for the 1st 35 games of the 97-98' season, the Bulls did start 8-7, but were 24-11 when Pip came back in January againt the Warriors.

So, they did hold their own. Not the dominate team that finished 62-20, but still a top 4 team in the East that year.

I would give that credit to Phil, he is one of the best coaches when it comes to getting more out of less. Just look at how the Lakers reserves are playing now.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 8-1!*

Holy Smokes!

The Celtics took down Kobe and the Lakers.

3 stars are better than 1.

(1 star would be better than 0  )

Looks like having the likes of PP, KG and Jesus on the court opens things up for the other guys.

Perkins with 21 and 9. Rondo with 10 assists.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore;_ylt=AnpU2EzCS.5L0Bdj285WnLo5nYcB?gid=2007112302


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

*Re: OT: Celtics 8-1!*



kukoc4ever said:


> Holy Smokes!
> 
> The Celtics took down Kobe and the Lakers.
> 
> ...


I certainly wouldn't call beating the Lakers "Holy Smokes!"-worthy.

EDIT: At home, no less.


----------



## garnett (May 13, 2003)

*Re: OT: Celtics 10-1!*

Please don't tell me this is going to be updated all season.


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

*Re: OT: Celtics 8-1!*



King Joseus said:


> Meh. So were the Pistons and Dallas, if I recall correctly.


if you are talking about last year's mavs, they were never really on pace to break the bulls record. They started off 0-4.


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

*Re: OT: Celtics 10-1!*



garnett said:


> Please don't tell me this is going to be updated all season.


...as well it should be. This is the Celtics return to glory. They have a legit 3- headed monster, real mature. They will win it all...barring injury.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

*Re: OT: Celtics 10-1!*



lorgg said:


> ...as well it should be. This is the Celtics return to glory. They have a legit 3- headed monster, real mature. They will win it all...barring injury.


Healthy Spurs beat a healthy Celtics, IMO.

(Pistons, too, actually).


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: OT: Celtics 10-1!*

I'd just like to point out that the Bucks are 7-4.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 10-1!*

Yowza!

Ray Ray with a 3 at the buzzer to win it.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore?gid=2007112430










Ainge looking good.


----------



## SportsWorld (Mar 8, 2007)

*Re: OT: Celtics 11-1!*

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DzlSsWnZxt0&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DzlSsWnZxt0&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 11-1!*

I bet Celtics fans are pissed about their lack of a great 9th and 10th man and that they are not playing with a gang of players in their early 20s.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 11-1!*

That was probably the best finish so far this season


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: OT: Celtics 11-1!*



kukoc4ever said:


> I bet Celtics fans are pissed about their lack of a great 9th and 10th man and that they are not playing with a gang of players in their early 20s.


Ehh, I hope your being sarcastic...

lol

regardless, I'm sure Ainge will work on something to get the team a deeper bench by the deadline.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: OT: Celtics 10-1!*



King Joseus said:


> Healthy Spurs beat a healthy Celtics, IMO.
> 
> (Pistons, too, actually).


So, the Pistons lose to a weak Clevland team but their going to beat the Celts in 7?

That's not happening...

Their only favorable match-up is at PG and I don't see Billups being the dividing factor in that series.

Pistons would lose that series, 4-2...I'd put money on it


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

*Re: OT: Celtics 11-1!*

Boy that was a great finish!
I just hope the Celtics don't peak too early.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 11-1!*

They are killing the Knicks tonight.

Rondo and Perk look very good. Filling their role perfectly.

MJ and Pip played about 38 mins a game when they won 72. The Big 3 average 38-40 mins. Cutting back a touch seems like one of the few adjustments they need to make.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 11-1!*

We lost to the Knicks, the Celtics are beating them by 40. 

Wow.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: OT: Celtics 11-1!*



kukoc4ever said:


> We lost to the Knicks, the Celtics are beating them by 40.
> 
> Wow.


and Detroit beat Orlando, who beat Boston. We beat Detroit. 

Point is: We could play this game round and round and it would mean nothing real, you know.

but i am still glad it isnt us that Eddy Curry is shooting into quadruple teams for. we have the framework for playoff success, NYK does not. Therefore, I like our potential for development this year better than theirs.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 11-1!*

I cant wait to go to the game next weekend (Boston @ Chicago)


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

*Re: OT: Celtics 12-2!*

that knick "low post prescence" really makes a difference, huh?

the bulls *will* compete....no way they lose by 40; that wasn't about talent, that was about heart and will. curry and company have zero.

and to the "stat ho's".....stats be damned, curry is poor basketball player (read; he ain't ****).


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

*Re: OT: Celtics 12-2!*



BULLHITTER said:


> that knick "low post prescence" really makes a difference, huh?
> 
> the bulls *will* compete....no way they lose by 40; that wasn't about talent, that was about heart and will. curry and company have zero.
> 
> and to the "stat ho's".....stats be damned, curry is poor basketball player (read; he ain't ****).


Maybe he aint **** but he played like he had to take one cause he flew off that court so fast it was like black friday.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 12-2!*

Holy crap!

The Celtics are 20-2!!!

Remember before the season started, when some diehard Paxson-heads were thinking his strange creation was in the same league as the Celtics?

Wow, that was wrong.

The Celtics beat the Raptors today 90-77, without Ray Allen.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/standings

Damn, the Celtics fans are sure lucky to have a GM with an actual set of stones like Ainge.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: OT: Celtics 12-2!*



kukoc4ever said:


> Holy crap!
> 
> The Celtics are 20-2!!!
> 
> ...



The deal Minnesota took was the one with the 11 million dollar expiring contract. What wrong moves did Pax make to miss out on this one now, then?

Of course you say Minnesota wouldve wanted Tyson (who they rejected before) and they wouldve wanted Curry because he's awesome.


This is another example where it's easy to beat up and Pax and support your purposes.

But when has there been any evidence that Minnesota wanted to deal with us, and we just didnt have the stones to complete anything?

Sam Smith (dont ATS) says we offered Deng and others. Minnesota just didnt want our guys, really. They never have. There have never been any serious rumors of Chi/Minn talks that got fast and furious.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 12-2!*



DengNabbit said:


> Sam Smith (dont ATS) says we offered Deng and others. Minnesota just didnt want our guys, really. They never have.


Yah, its pretty clear they wanted a big man in return.

Cough cough... Chandler Curry cough cough.

---

People were actually saying the Bulls could best the Celtics THIS SEASON though, with this current group of players!!! Really, take a look at the old posts. Some folks were actually cocky about it (Paxson's Bulls will teach these star driven Celtics what being a TEAM is all about). LOL. Man, that's just a weird way to think about the NBA.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: OT: Celtics 12-2!*



kukoc4ever said:


> Yah, its pretty clear they wanted a big man in return.
> 
> Cough cough... Chandler Curry cough cough.


Cough, they'd already rejected Chandler before. They wanted a real center who can put a body on someone. They didnt want a rebounding machine. Chandler has always been a high rebound per minute guy, so I think if McHale really wanted that guy, he wouldve acted on it.

No, he wanted Al Jefferson. If given the choice between the two, who you think he's gonna take? Hell, once KG was on the market, i bet NO called. i bet everyone did. 

The deal they took was Boston's. Best deal for their purposes.




and if you're saying Curry is better/more valuable than Jefferson, you'll have to unpack that further for me. You're the only one around here seeing this bright Eddy Curry future still. But old habits die hard. I personally still sometimes stop flipping the remote when i see WWE.






kukoc4ever said:


> People were actually saying the Bulls could best the Celtics THIS SEASON though, with this current group of players!!! Really, take a look at the old posts. Some folks were actually cocky about it (Paxson's Bulls will teach these star driven Celtics what being a TEAM is all about). LOL. Man, that's just a weird way to think about the NBA.


If your point here is that fans here were being fans, then...yes, they're guilty as charged. Newsflash: team supporters saying their team will win in the coming year. Film @ 10.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-2!*

Also, you always argue that holding onto Eddy/Tyson wouldve given us more trade options.

Why cant I argue it the other way? If Memphis is struggling financially, and they one day decide to really put Gasol on the market.... you think they're gonna want someone similarly priced (Tyson)..... or do they want Tyrus/Noah? Still on their rookie contracts for a few years.

It more depends on what the trading team wants. I think with the money crunch many teams are facing this offseason onward, more and more teams are going to want rookie contracts.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-2!*

Jefferson is more valuable than anyone on the Bulls.

The only hope would have been Deng and Chandler/Curry. Or perhaps Gordon and Chandler/Curry if we were lucky.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-2!*



DengNabbit said:


> If Memphis is struggling financially, and they one day decide to really put Gasol on the market.... you think they're gonna want someone similarly priced (Tyson)..... or do they want Tyrus/Noah? Still on their rookie contracts for a few years.


Either way, we are a hell of a lot better off with Chandler. Either Griz take Chandler or we still have him after the trade.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-2!*



kukoc4ever said:


> Jefferson is more valuable than anyone on the Bulls.
> 
> The only hope would have been Deng and Chandler/Curry. Or perhaps Gordon and Chandler/Curry if we were lucky.


Deng/Chandler? That's a lot of salary. Minnesota likely got 15 different offers for KG. They couldve added all that salary but chose not to. They got a real good player, and expirings.



above you say "the only hope," but in prior posts you make it sound like it's a given Pax should have done this. 

hence all the "horrible, horrible Pax" posts. Pax is the worst GM ever, bla bla bla.



C'mon now, you know Minnesota didnt want to add all that salary you speak of. Deng + Chandler? C'mon. They wanted one guy, Jefferson, who (according to you, btw) is more valuable than anyone on the Bulls. And then in addition to that, they wanted salary cap space.

We could never have beaten Boston's deal, b/c they wanted things we didnt have. Hell, if anything they shoulda gotten a PJ Brown, only a year later. And when we got PJ Brown, you said it was the exact wrong move to make. Hence I'm not so hard on Pax for that one.



By the way, when Wallace is out to pasture in two years....he will have been an expiring contract before then. Need that if you want to trade for a star. Not long term signed niche guys. 

Minn wanted expirings. Not Chandler or Curry.


----------



## BullsAttitude (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 12-2!*



kukoc4ever said:


> Damn, the Celtics fans are sure lucky to have a GM with an actual set of stones like Ainge.


Danny Ainge doesn't have a set of stones, he got lucky and it all started when Boston didn't get picks 1 or 2 in the draft.

If they get either pick, they are not where they are at as of right now. Boston would have selected Oden or Durant and that would have been that. With them not getting either pick, everything fell into motion for them to be where they are at now.

Remember, before the draft, Boston was trying to get KG, so that showed that McHale was already working with Ainge to unload Garnett. KG did not and let me REPEAT, did not want to go to Boston with the talent they had at the time. That is why the deal couldn't get done in the 1st place.

Seattle gets the number 2 pick in the draft and they pick Durant. The guy they are going to put all of their stock into for him to be the franchise player. They know Lewis is going to leave and get his money elsewhere. Why not start over from scratch since they weren't contenders in the West anyways, so they decide to trade Ray Allen to Boston for their number 6 pick and some other role players.

Now, Boston has Paul Pierce and Ray Allen on board, that is a little more tempting to KG now. Now after conversing with other stars and knowing that the East is wide open for anybody to take, he is OK in going to Boston, the destination he DIDN'T want to go to before.

Now, that Boston has Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, and KG on the team, that is more tempting to free agents, James Posey and Eddie House. 2 players who are used to being on winning playoff teams. Now, they sign on making the Celtics a little better off the bench.

Ainge took over before the '03-04 season and already had a star in Paul Pierce, something Paxson did not have, and yet Ainge wasn't able to do anything until he DIDN'T get the number 1 or 2 pick in the past draft. Everything fell into place with luck and something Joe Cocker likes to say "With a Little Help from My Friends!"

Boston is now in a 3 years max window to win a title. I guarentee though that in 4 years, Boston will be back in the bottom half of the East or out of the playoff picture all together. KG, Allen, and Pierce will all be in their mid 30s and will be on the downswing of their careers.

I expected Boston to be one of the top 4 teams in the East this year. I am surprised by their start but not totally surprised. 12 of their 1st 22 games have been at home and they haven't played one game out West yet. So, until then, I will still stand by Detroit being the favorite for the East. Also remember, the NBA season is a marathon, not a sprint.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 12-2!*

Ainge -- Executive of the Year

Paxson -- bad GM

Paxson fans who felt that the Bulls could hang with the mighty Celtics -- looking silly.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-2!*



DengNabbit said:


> C'mon now, you know Minnesota didnt want to add all that salary you speak of. Deng + Chandler? C'mon. They wanted one guy, Jefferson, who (according to you, btw) is more valuable than anyone on the Bulls. And then in addition to that, they wanted salary cap space.
> 
> We could never have beaten Boston's deal, b/c they wanted things we didnt have. Hell, if anything they shoulda gotten a PJ Brown, only a year later. And when we got PJ Brown, you said it was the exact wrong move to make. Hence I'm not so hard on Pax for that one.




Perhaps, its hard to say.

Chandler is slightly cheaper than Jefferson. And the contract is shorter. Less risk. Its not a lock that the KG trade would have went our way, but perhaps the Kobe one, perhaps the Pau one, perhaps the next one. Its nice to have Cap Space, but if you think you won't get anything better than a Deng or Chandler anyway, who are both very good players, then perhaps that's a better option.

Paxson ****ed up the team.

If he would have kept Chandler and Curry.

1.) It would be a better "win now" team.
2.) It would be a better "win later" team.
3.) It would be better poised for a consolidation trade. 

Chandler and Curry are more trade able than the wretched contract of Ben Wallace (how any right minded person could defend him is beyond me). Especially since the Bulls likely would have kept improving from the 47 win-#3 in the East starting point.

Feel free to disagree. At the very least I expect a knee jerk devils advocate post.

All I know is that you really like Ben Wallace's game and that you get mad when Nocioni plays, so I'll take your opinions for what they are worth.

Just like the guys who thought that Chandler for PJ was a good trade due to PJ's veteran leadership and those guys that thought Paxson was actually building a title contender with this sad assemblage, even thinking it was better than the Boston freaking Celtics, these wrong headed notions will come out in the wash. Its fun to debate them.

BTW, Paxson drafted Ben Gordon instead of Al Jefferson, who was good enough to land KG. That one is on Paxson as well. Ouch.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-2!*



kukoc4ever said:


> Perhaps, its hard to say.
> 
> Chandler is slightly cheaper than Jefferson. And the contract is shorter. Less risk. Its not a lock that the KG trade would have went our way, but perhaps the Kobe one, perhaps the Pau one, perhaps the next one. Its nice to have Cap Space, but if you think you won't get anything better than a Deng or Chandler anyway, who are both very good players, then perhaps that's a better option.
> 
> ...


I'm curious to see who's a good GM, in your book.


----------



## Pain5155 (May 28, 2006)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-2!*

signing wallace, and drafting two hustle players with 0 post game in Noah and Thomas screwed the bulls. Of only they kep aldridge that couldve changed everything. Wat were the bulls even think in doing that.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-2!*



kukoc4ever said:


> BTW, Paxson drafted Ben Gordon instead of Al Jefferson, who was good enough to land KG. That one is on Paxson as well. Ouch.


That game leads nowhere. If i wanted to play it, we could say your boy Krause took Jay Williams instead of Amare. And that's less forgivable in my book since Amare was more on the map. Jefferson went 15th.


And, how could Pax draft Jefferson? He already had the worlds two greatest big men on his roster. Man, Pax had to spend so much time working around Krause's ridiculous pick of a kid who couldnt get up and down the court in high school, let alone the NBA.

The material I've quoted above is the perfect definition of "knee-jerk." You attacked the Gordon pick for no sensible reason other than having an opportunity to slam Pax. Not even stopping to think how stocked we were at Jefferson's position.


----------



## BullsAttitude (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-2!*



kukoc4ever said:


> BTW, Paxson drafted Ben Gordon instead of Al Jefferson, who was good enough to land KG. That one is on Paxson as well. Ouch.


No, Danny Ainge and Kevin McHale being buddies and old teammates is what landed the Celtics Kevin Garnett.

You keep forgetting that Paxson offered Deng, Chandler and the #2 Pick for KG before the '06 Draft and McHale wouldn't take it, he wanted more.

Yet, he would take Jefferson and some fillers for KG the next year? 

You know, McHale is the one who should get executive of the year for turning the Celtics around, not Danny Ainge.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-2!*



BullsAttitude said:


> You keep forgetting that Paxson offered Deng, Chandler and the #2 Pick for KG before the '06 Draft and McHale wouldn't take it, he wanted more.


Yea, but a year later when McHale was ready to deal, Pax sure didn't maximize the value of the latter two assets, did he?


----------



## BullsAttitude (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-2!*



johnston797 said:


> Yea, but a year later when McHale was ready to deal, Pax sure didn't maximize the value of the latter two assets, did he?


I'll agree he didn't but it has pretty much been stated that the Bulls were not in the running for KG when he became available this summer. McHale had his own agenda and it didn't involve anybody but dealing with his old buddy Danny Ainge.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-2!*



johnston797 said:


> Yea, but a year later when McHale was ready to deal, Pax sure didn't maximize the value of the latter two assets, did he?



Minnesota would not have wanted to add Chandler's $10M per and Deng's incipient $12M per. I know this because the type of deal they took was for a guy who would end up making $12 mil annually and then a bunch of cap space.

I'm sure they got tons of types of offers leaguewide; they wanted Jefferson, who makes about half of Lu/Tyson combined, yearly. And cap space.



I dont see why Bulls fans can't understand that Minny never wanted Deng. Not as badly as we think they would. They wanted Al Jefferson.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-2!*



DengNabbit said:


> Minnesota would not have wanted to add Chandler's $10M per and Deng's incipient $12M per. I know this because the type of deal they took was for a guy who would end up making $12 mil annually and then a bunch of cap space.
> 
> I'm sure they got tons of types of offers leaguewide; they wanted Jefferson, who makes about half of Lu/Tyson combined, yearly. And cap space.
> 
> ...


How do you think Deng and Aldridge would have done as an offer?


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-2!*



johnston797 said:


> How do you think Deng and Aldridge would have done as an offer?


Jefferson is a 20 and 12 guy, at age 22. Now, Minny's track record is to pay one guy big money, and get small parts in and out during the span of said guy's career.

Deng and Aldridge, as of next year, would be making $17M combined. A few years later that's kicked up to $22M, at least. And neither of those guys is a franchise guy, in a league where a dominating player can mean dynasty. Al Jefferson has a greater chance of being that.



I bet Minny views Deng this way: a guy who is about to make $12M who just isnt that dangerous. They would be far more willing to pay a SF way less for similar production. Again, $ has always dictated that team's actions more than having a well rounded team.




So yea, Al Jefferson & cap space bests Deng/Aldridge too, for their $-purposes especially, but probably for a lot of teams too.


----------



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

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-2!*

I think it's safe to say that the perfect storm of circumstance that led to the 2008 Celtics is unrecreatable in a laboratory. To have accidentally traded for Kevin Garnett's oldest friend in the NBA (because the trade for Ray Ray was based on his being a vet all star, they didn't know how close Allen and Garnett were until after the fact) is akin to winning the lotto.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-2!*



DengNabbit said:


> So yea, Al Jefferson & cap space bests Deng/Aldridge too, for their $-purposes especially, but probably for a lot of teams too.


What are you basing this on? Aldridge is the guy that is cheap for the next 3 years. He roughly as good a prospect as Jefferson. Plus untouchable Deng for free. Minn has a $68M payroll. They are willing to pay for players.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-2!*



johnston797 said:


> What are you basing this on? Aldridge is the guy that is cheap for the next 3 years. He roughly as good a prospect as Jefferson. Plus untouchable Deng for free. Minn has a $68M payroll.



I'm basing this on precisely the deal they accepted. We can safely assume they had many deals to choose from. The one they chose featured a player and a ton of future cap space.

The one you speak of doesnt offer as much cap space, and doesnt offer a prospect on the level of Jefferson.




> They are willing to pay for players.


KG would disagree with you. Isnt their inability to do so the whole reason this thing got started? And your $68M figure counts the $12M Ratliff buyout...and looks like it counts Juwan Howard's $7M; the way things developed w/ him was far from a commitment to winning in the present.


It's funny how I have to "offer evidence," when the people who blame Pax routinely just assume Minny even wanted Deng. He was offered in two different offseasons, and we've never heard rumors that the Bulls were even relatively close to a deal for KG.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-2!*



DengNabbit said:


> KG would disagree with you. Isnt their inability to do so the whole reason this thing got started? And your $68M figure counts the $12M Ratliff buyout...and looks like it counts Juwan Howard's $7M; the way things developed w/ him was far from a commitment to winning in the present.


This analysis is way off base. Minn has traditionaly had a high payroll. In lux tax land. Last year, with KG http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2935728. This year, without, KG.

If we can't agree on the black and white, no wonder you won't admit that Aldridge + Deng is far superior in talent to Jefferson.


----------



## Case (Dec 17, 2007)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-2!*



johnston797 said:


> This analysis is way off base. Minn has traditionaly had a high payroll. In lux tax land.
> 
> If we can't agree on the black and white, no wonder you won't admit that Aldridge + Deng is far superior in talent to Jefferson.


He's not saying Aldridge/Deng isn't superior in talent to Jefferson, he's saying *Minnesota wanted Jefferson and cap space*.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-2!*



Case said:


> He's not saying Aldridge/Deng isn't superior in talent to Jefferson, he's saying *Minnesota wanted Jefferson and cap space*.


It's not superior, it's *FAR* superior that's the question my friend.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-2!*



johnston797 said:


> If we can't agree on the black and white, no wonder you won't agree that Aldridge + Deng is far superior in talent to Jefferson.


Show me where I said there was less talent. I said Minnesota wouldnt want that deal.


What do we talk about on these boards non-stop? The importance of getting one of those rare frontcourt back-to-the-basket scorers. One who differentiates the offense. Jefferson is one of those. 



Now Deng and Aldridge are more face-the-hoop players for the most part. I think a team would rather *spend less* and get the offense-differentiating Jefferson. 

Remember, teams trading for Deng know he'll want AT LEAST $12M next year. No one wants to pay Deng that. Athletic defenders shut him down. Minn can easily get close to Deng-level SF elsewhere. Small forward is something you dont have to acquire via trade. 




If you're trading a star, you want a potential one in return. You can get complimentary players wherever. Jefferson is averaging 20 and 12!


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-2!*



DengNabbit said:


> Show me where I said there was less talent.


Nice strawman. It's far superior talent and trade value.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-2!*



johnston797 said:


> Nice strawman. It's far superior talent and trade value.


How bout we start looking at your motivations, then? You're taking fictional scenarios to create reasons why Pax has blown it.

That, to me is a reach. You're trying to prove Pax's guilt, and you're 1) ASSUMING anyone even wants Deng 2) ASSUMING Minn values Aldridge more than Ratliff cap space.

The truth is you know nothing. You dont know what deals were offered; it helps your case to assume all these teams want what we have.




In that offseason Minn reportedly turned down Deng and Marion. They wanted a big man with a low post game, and cap space... and they got it.

We were not in a position to offer either last offseason. What more do you need than that? What they wanted, what they chose amongst probably 15 potential deals... WE DID NOT HAVE.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-2!*

If you dont think Minnesota wants to have their payroll drop off a table, you'll have to explain to me why they acquired $12M Theo Ratliff, who is essentially a cadaver at this point, basketball-playing wise.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-2!*

Well Bill Simmons weights in with this 50 most valuable nba players considering contracts.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/071218

Aldridge - Honorable mention
Chandler - 40th most valuable (with obligatory Pax slam in his comments)
Deng - 32nd most valuable
Jefferson - 21st most valuable


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-2!*



johnston797 said:


> Well Bill Simmons weights in with this 50 most valuable nba players considering contracts.
> 
> http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/071218
> 
> ...



Talk about straw men. You're defending your position with an article that was written AFTER Jefferson's contract extension. The KG deal happened before the extension.

At the time this deal wouldve been done, Jefferson was still on his rookie contract alone. As Simmons says at the onset of his article, he ranks high players who are simply on the rookie contract.




But whatever helps ya sleep at night.



Also, he writes:



> Ray Felton, Danny Granger, Marvin Williams, LaMarcus Aldridge: All quality bargains because they're still on the rookie scale. Do you see any of them ever making an All-Star team? *Me neither*.


Whereas the "ceiling" he mentions for Jefferson is Kevin McHale, who was a Top 50 all-timer.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-2!*



DengNabbit said:


> You're taking fictional scenarios to create reasons why Pax has blown it.


It really doesn't take fictional scenarios. I will say I love how other teams have improved themselves and some posters want to hold Pax to these standards and other posters want to moan about how none of these avenues were open to Pax. Funny how these other GMs were able to find good deals. Maybe we need to swap out GMs just to find a "lucky" one.




DengNabbit said:


> In that offseason Minn reportedly turned down Deng and Marion.


Well, they sure didn't turn down Aldridge. 

But I'm happy to agree to disagree from this point.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-2!*



DengNabbit said:


> You're defending your position with an article that was written AFTER Jefferson's contract extension. The KG deal happened before the extension.


So in August, Timberwolves traded for Jefferson and in October they gave him a big extension, BUT the Timberwolves didn't factor this into the trade? :lol: Tell me you are not saying that.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-2!*



johnston797 said:


> So in August, Timberwolves traded for Jefferson and in October they gave him a big extension, BUT THEY didn't factor this into trade? :lol: Tell me you are not saying that.


I'm not. I'm simply saying dont go to a source that values rookie contract value in its big old contracts-ranking. 

When the Jefferson deal sent over was a rookie contract.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-2!*



DengNabbit said:


> Whereas the "ceiling" he mentions for Jefferson is Kevin McHale, who was a Top 50 all-timer.


Small difference. Simmons said Jefferson's ceiling is _The next Kevin McHale, only if McHale couldn't guard anyone_


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-2!*



johnston797 said:


> Well, they sure didn't turn down Aldridge.
> 
> But I'm happy to agree to disagree from this point.



Every team in the league calls when someone like KG is on the market. I bet Aldridge was offered, even.

Aldridge is not as difference-making as you say he is.




You're likely one of the people who blames Pax for not netting a low post scorer, but now to make this argument you hype up a face-the-basket guy over a back-to-the-basket 20 point man. But I will not put words in your mouth.


----------



## Case (Dec 17, 2007)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-2!*

The article is irrelevant. *Minnesota wanted Jefferson and cap space*.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-2!*



DengNabbit said:


> I'm simply saying dont go to a source that values rookie contract value in its big old contracts-ranking.


Actually, I thought Simmons validated your main point to some extent. If a GM's goal was to get the best ranked player and agreed with Simmons rankings, Jefferson is the guy.

However, *like any GM*, Simmons is smart enough to realize Deng and Jefferson are getting paid at the end of this year. Chandler is already off the rookie contract. The only guy we have been discussion on a rookie contract for any period of time, Aldridge, is ranked lower than all of these guys. So what's wrong with the source.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-2!*



DengNabbit said:


> Every team in the league calls when someone like KG is on the market. *I bet Aldridge was offered, even.*


I thought you had issues with pure speculation that fits an agenda.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-2!*



johnston797 said:


> I thought you had issues with pure speculation that fits an agenda.


I'm not basing my whole argument on that type of speculation. You have a very specific critique of Pax, and need specific examples. My much easier job is just pointing out potential holes in your scenarios.



I do want to say though, it's not pure speculation to say that when a top 5 player in the NBA gets on the market, practically every team calls.

And as you say, who does Portland wield that is of trade value? Aldridge. 




But youre right, any talks between them lasted only one phone call. Same length of time as Minn/Chi talks probably were, when Deng was on the table.





To address your other point, Minnesota likely had 15 offers. They could have had any rookie contracts they wanted, I would guess. This is KG we're talking about. They instead decided to take Jefferson, some scraps, and Minnesota's own previous first rounder next year, which could be Mayo or Rose? Although it's conditional so maybe no. Still, they got almighty CASH in their deal too. 

Minn wanted very specific things, we didnt have anything to offer that nearly resembled the deal they took.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-2!*

ok i'm spent. quite the revisionism 'sesh'


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-2!*

Skin it any way you want. It's pure speculation and probaby very wrong to think that PDX would gut their team to get KG after landing Oden. Most GMs understand the Win now or Win later dynamic.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-2!*



johnston797 said:


> Skin it any way you want. It's pure speculation and probaby very wrong to think that PDX would gut their team to get KG after landing Oden. Most GMs understand the Win now or Win later dynamic.


I'm not saying Portland heavily pursued KG.

The point is we made a play for Garnett and Boston beat us. If they turned down Deng/Chandler and Deng/Tyrus/Thabo, they're probably turning down Deng/Aldridge. They wanted cap space, and there's zero evidence Minny ever pined for Deng.



Posters with your bent, however, tend to ASSUME Deng was wanted by Minnesota. Or anyone. Here is how the NBA likely views Deng (as they view many other players): He's a nice piece to have, but not when you have to pay him $12M. And after 2009, Aldridge joins that class of guys as well.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-2!*

I'd much rather pay Aldridge 12M than Deng......and Aldridge will DEF get that money or more


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-2!*



The ROY said:


> I'd much rather pay Aldridge 12M than Deng......and Aldridge will DEF get that money or more


I'd guess most the NBA agrees with your take.

But then the question is, if you can trump all that by getting Jefferson on your payroll, starting next year at $11M.... do you take that?

That's what Boston did.



McHale knows he has no chance in the West unless he lands a star with this move. This is likely the last big leverage he'll ever have in a deal. In going with Boston, he's taking a chance that Jefferson can go from 20 and 12 to something ridiculous like 26 and 13. Only that way will he get to a Western Conference Finals at some point.


Deng and Aldridge turns you into the Bulls West. perimeter team that has no worldbeater star. That's why Minnesota took the deal. They dont want their ceiling to be 'Bulls,' but ESPECIALLY not in the West. Now they'll try to get wing players and guards on the cheap to go around Jefferson.




Minny did spend when KG was around, but not on long contracts. They always got their wings and guards here and there.... a little Cassell and Spree for a bit, a little Stephon, a little Wally, etc.

That's what they'll do again. Instead of paying Deng $12M immediately, their mindset is to much rather pay Brewer way less for awhile and see what he can be.


----------



## Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! (Jun 10, 2003)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-2!*

Well, all I can say is, "the East is one big crapper, AGAIN". Everyone out west is busy duking it out to see who'll play the C's, who are the only worthy team worth mentioning east of the Mississippi.


----------



## Case (Dec 17, 2007)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-2!*

Detroit is currently sitting on the 4th best record in the league, and is only a game behind San Antonio for the #2 spot. I wouldn't disregard them so easily.


----------



## bullscynic (Dec 19, 2007)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-2!*

Yeah, the Celtics finally lose a game. Obviously I'm not pulling for them to beat the 72-10 record.


----------



## BullsAttitude (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 8-0!*



The ROY said:


> look man
> 
> KG and PIERCE would of been enough to get to the finals in the east...
> 
> ...


I know it's only 1 game, but do you still think I'm crazy to think DETROIT is the team to beat in the East?

And for whoever said that the Rondo-Billups matchup wouldn't mean anything, Billups abused Rondo tonight!!!!

Detroit is a team full of vets who is hungry to get back to the Finals, the bench has improved and is deeper than the Celtics. If the big 3 don't score over 50 tonight, it would have been a blowout for the Pistons.

Note: The 2 years that Detroit went to the Finals, they didn't have homecourt in the Conference Finals. The past 2 years, they have had the homecourt and lost.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

*Re: OT: Celtics 8-0!*



BullsAttitude said:


> I know it's only 1 game, but do you still think I'm crazy to think DETROIT is the team to beat in the East?
> 
> And for whoever said that the Rondo-Billups matchup wouldn't mean anything, Billups abused Rondo tonight!!!!
> 
> ...


_I_ don't think you're crazy.

:biggrin:


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-3!*

DAL/PHO is a barnburner too. A lot of great basketball on national TV tonight.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-3!*

Billups raped Rondo, and will in the future. But Pierce was god awful tonight and is the most un-clutch player in the league. I think we'll realize that before the playoffs start


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-3!*



Marcus13 said:


> Billups raped Rondo, and will in the future. But Pierce was god awful tonight and is the most un-clutch player in the league. I think we'll realize that before the playoffs start


Rondo is very talented, but with playoff pressure, what are they to expect from him?


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-3!*



DengNabbit said:


> Rondo is very talented, but with playoff pressure, what are they to expect from him?


Not a damn thing on defense, and probably very streaky shooting


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-3!*

Pierce is fine in the clutch and Rondo is learning by the game. I still think Boston will be the team to beat come playoff time. 

Looks like Pistons are significantly better than last year given some extra bench production. That will have to hold for them to win.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-3!*

Holy crap!!!

This record is getting disgusting.

What a great off-season by Ainge. 

I can't wait for the Celtics / Pistons ECFs.

That's going to be a 7 game series for the ages!


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

*Re: OT: Celtics 28-3!*

little early for *28*-3 but friday's not that far away. :biggrin:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 28-3!*



David_Ortiz said:


> little early for *28*-3 but friday's not that far away. :biggrin:



LOL, sorry for the typo.

It says in the AP story that 27-3 is the best 30 game start for a team in the shot-clock era.

Yowza.

This freight train still rolls on.

Star power is the way to go, it appears.


----------



## BullsAttitude (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 28-3!*



kukoc4ever said:


> LOL, sorry for the typo.
> 
> It says in the AP story that 27-3 is the best 30 game start for a team in the shot-clock era.
> 
> ...


Actually it would tie it.

The Bulls started the 95-96 season 41-3, after losing to Indiana in December of that season, they were sitting at 23-3. After that loss is when they went on a 18 game winning streak that was snapped in Denver.

That Denver game is the game where they fell behind by 35 points and came all the way back to take the lead going into the 4th, but there legs ran out of gas.

Great start by Boston, and yes they just 4-0 on a Western Trip but the true test won't come until Feb and March when they travel out West and face the better Western Teams.

I still believe Detroit is the team to beat in the East. Chauncey/Detroit's improved bench is the deciding factor. Some people are looking past the fact that Detroit is sitting at 25-7 right now, with 2 of those losses coming from the Bulls.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 28-3!*

Great point by *BullsAttitude*. Great catch! 

As it turns out, there have been 5 other teams besides Ainge's Celtics to lose only 3 of their first 30.



> Paul Pierce scored 19 points and assisted on four key baskets down the stretch as the Celtics improved to 27-3 to match the best 30-game start in the shot-clock era. Five other teams have lost just three of their first 30 games, including the 1995-96 Chicago Bulls who finished the season with an NBA-record 72 wins.


What a turnaround story by Danny Ainge. He has to be a lock for Exec of the year, don't you think?

Perhaps the Pistons are the team to beat in the East.

One thing is clear. The Celtics and Pistons are clearly the class of the Eastern conference this season, with the young Magic trying to hang in there behind them.

Not good news, given that the Celtics have owned us and the ***-whipping the Pistons gave the Bulls in the playoffs last season.

I think Celtics / Pistons is going to be one of the more entertaining ECFs in a long time. The only two guys who can stop this from happening are likely Dwight Howard and Lebron James.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-3!*



kukoc4ever said:


> Holy crap!!!
> 
> This record is getting disgusting.
> 
> ...


I bet Maverick fans were saying something similar last season. Still, I'm not doubting the possibility. I wonder how often the #1 and #2 seed really do face each other in the conference finals?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-3!*

Whoa now!

Quite the retort from the star powered Boston Celtics.

Kind of frusterating to see yet another young star, TT's pal from LSU, kicking butt in some big games while out guy has a hard time getting consistent minutes.

Still though, Celtics / Pistons is going to be a slobberknocker for the rest of the season. Sit back, get some popcorn and enjoy. I can't wait for the next showdown. Exciting times for Celtics and Pistons fans.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-3!*



kukoc4ever said:


> Whoa now!
> 
> Quite the retort from the star powered Boston Celtics.
> 
> ...


Havent you pretty much made this post 20 times? We get it.

I wasnt one who said Boston would be bad, but I still am irritated by this, due to repetition more than anything else.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-3!*



DengNabbit said:


> Havent you pretty much made this post 20 times? We get it.
> 
> I wasnt one who said Boston would be bad, but I still am irritated by this, due to repetition more than anything else.



I honestly can't remember posting about Big Baby in the past, but perhaps you are right. But, I don't think so.

Please, most of your posts as of late have nothing to do with basketball. 

Please try to restrain yourself. Thanks.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-3!*

Please, keep it about basketball -k4e


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

*Re: OT: Celtics 29-3!*

i love basketball :biggrin:


----------



## BullsAttitude (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-3!*



kukoc4ever said:


> Whoa now!
> 
> Quite the retort from the star powered Boston Celtics.
> 
> ...


Kind of easy to play loose when you have KG, Pierce, and Allen surrounding you. When you don't have the pressure of being a main contributor in the front court, you can play that way.

Look at Maxiell for the Pistons, a late round pick who is a solid contributor for the Pistons, yet can play loose due to Rasheed and Prince.

Tyrus has got more potential than both, he just has to acquire the brain to go with the potential. He showed some flashes last night.

I would lay money that Rondo, Perkins and Davis wouldn't be having the season they've had if KG wasn't there. He is the one that is making the players around him better.

Just like Michael and Scottie did for other players in this league.

Now, the question is, how will these players that have never been in the playoffs perform for them? Experience in the playoffs goes a long way, just look at the Spurs.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-3!*



BullsAttitude said:


> I would lay money that Rondo, Perkins and Davis wouldn't be having the season they've had if KG wasn't there. He is the one that is making the players around him better.


No doubt, I said this repeatedly before the season started.

Allen, Rondo, Perkins, Davis are all OK to good players. Adding STAR POWER like Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett to the mix is going to make their jobs easier.

People were saying that the Celtics lacked depth, and some even used that as a reason to explain how the Bulls would end up in line if not better than the Celtics before the season started! We have Thabo as our 10th man... that kind of argument, which has now shown to be clearly wrong.

And, yes, Celtics / Spurs would be fun to watch as well, and you can't discount the experience that the Spurs have.

If this keeps up, the Bulls 72 win record could be in serious jeopardy. I'd hate to see that happen.


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

*Re: OT: Celtics 29-3!*

i think i found out how to beat them

go after kg just like we go after shaq

kg in foul trouble team doesnt play as good

big baby wont be getting 20 points in a game every night right?


----------



## BullsAttitude (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-3!*



kukoc4ever said:


> No doubt, I said this repeatedly before the season started.
> 
> Allen, Rondo, Perkins, Davis are all OK to good players. Adding STAR POWER like Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett to the mix is going to make their jobs easier.
> 
> ...


I was one of the one's that said they lacked depth, but that was before they signed Posey and Eddie House. Now, my point is that Allen, Rondo, Perkins and Davis have no PLAYOFF experience. That is very important come the 2nd season.

Playoffs is totally different from the regular season, in the playoffs, every shot, every turnover, every play is critical. So, come that time what will happen with Rondo, Allen, Perkins and Davis? How will they respond? KG, Pierce, Ray, Posey and House will be fine, but the others, who knows?

Also, you can't count out Cleveland. They were down 20 today to Toronto and Lebron took over in the 4th quarter and they won. They are getting into game shape, they have everyone back now, so you can't count them out.

Lebron can single handily carry a team to a playoff victory. He beat Boston pretty much by himself the first time and the 2nd time Boston won, Lebron was out with the hand injury.

For the 72 win season, if Boston is sitting strong after Feb/Mar when they have gone out West and had a tougher trip than the previous one, then I will worry about the record. Although, I think Boston is playing for the best record in the league to have homecourt throughout, cause I believe they think they can't win the title without it.


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-3!*



BullsAttitude said:


> I was one of the one's that said they lacked depth, but that was before they signed Posey and Eddie House. Now, my point is that Allen, Rondo, Perkins and Davis have no PLAYOFF experience. That is very important come the 2nd season.
> 
> Playoffs is totally different from the regular season, in the playoffs, every shot, every turnover, every play is critical. So, come that time what will happen with Rondo, Allen, Perkins and Davis? How will they respond? KG, Pierce, Ray, Posey and House will be fine, but the others, who knows?
> 
> ...


i'd also like to add, what have allen, pierce, and kg won? none of them have a championship


----------



## Case (Dec 17, 2007)

*Re: OT: Celtics 20-3!*



kukoc4ever said:


> > Originally Posted by DengNabbit View Post
> > Havent you pretty much made this post 20 times? We get it.
> >
> > I wasnt one who said Boston would be bad, but I still am irritated by this, due to repetition more than anything else.
> ...


He wasn't referring to Glen Davis, and you know it.


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 29-3!*

They need to give McHale exec of the year for what he has done to Boston, not Ainge. He obviously has a soft spot for the Celtics and his buddy Ainge. And he also seems to be oblivious to getting fired no matter what he does. Trading Garnett away for what he did as well as that whole Joe Smith debacle years ago where they lost all the picks should mean this guy is unemployed. I think he saw the writing on the wall for his job and decided to help his old team and old teammate. Maybe Ainge promised him a better paying job if he gave him Garnett.

McHale is only a fraction better than Isiah.


----------



## BullsAttitude (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 30-5!*

What? No update from our mod on the Celtics losing 2 of 3 and needing a total Nets meltdown to not make it 3 straight losses?

Or are we seeing how the Celtics lack of depth can hurt them in the long run? They lost to Charlotte at home when Ray and Davis sat out, then lost to the Wizards with Rondo sitting out.

Also, Celtics have to remember that over a 7 game series, teams become more comfortable as the series goes along and they learn how to play a team better, hence the Bulls making a series out of it against the Pistons last season.

Ainge needs to make one more move and bring in another veteran player to come of the bench or the Celtics will not get by the Pistons in the East. 

Also, I think we can state that the Bulls record is probably going to stay. Amazing thing about the '96 Bulls team, I don't think people realize they lost their last 3 games by 1 point! Imagine if they had won those games against Toronto, Charlotte, and Indiana?


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

*Re: OT: Celtics 30-5!*



BullsAttitude said:


> What? No update from our mod on the Celtics losing 2 of 3 and needing a total Nets meltdown to not make it 3 straight losses?
> 
> Or are we seeing how the Celtics lack of depth can hurt them in the long run? They lost to Charlotte at home when Ray and Davis sat out, then lost to the Wizards with Rondo sitting out.
> 
> ...


I took the liberty of updating their record, but I really didn't have anything to say about 'em.

I'm not a Celtics fan, so I really don't care about anything besides them losing more than 10 games this year. Looks like that'll happen, IMO.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

*Re: OT: Celtics 30-5!*

I'm really tired of hearing about the Celtics and this really doesn't belong on a bulls forum, but whatever.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

*Re: OT: Celtics 30-5!*

Think I found some of you celtics bandwagon riders on myspace

sigh


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 30-5!*



BullsAttitude said:


> What? No update from our mod on the Celtics losing 2 of 3 and needing a total Nets meltdown to not make it 3 straight losses?


You don't have to bash the poor guy. He is a true Bulls fan.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

*Re: OT: Celtics 30-5!*



Electric Slim said:


> You don't have to bash the poor guy. He is a true Bulls fan.


I wouldn't exactly call that a bashing. Besides, we (most of us) know quite well he's a true Bulls fan.

You ought to drop by more often, Slim.


----------



## bullscynic (Dec 19, 2007)

*Re: OT: Celtics 30-5!*



liekomgj4ck said:


> I'm really tired of hearing about the Celtics and this really doesn't belong on a bulls forum, but whatever.


It does because its about them chasing our 72-10 record. Obviously most of us here probably hope they fail. I would assume that anyone thats a Bulls fan would want to see them keep the record.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

*Re: OT: Celtics 30-5!*



bullscynic said:


> It does because its about them chasing our 72-10 record. Obviously most of us here probably hope they fail. I would assume that anyone thats a Bulls fan would want to see them keep the record.


Yeah, that's more or less the only reason I care what they're doing right now.

They've gotta go 40-4 over their last 44 games to tie it. I'm not too worried.


----------



## bullscynic (Dec 19, 2007)

*Re: OT: Celtics 32-6!*

7 loses now.


----------



## bullscynic (Dec 19, 2007)

*Re: OT: Celtics 32-6!*

8 loses now. It's very unlikely that they will go the rest of the way and only lose 2 more games.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

*Re: OT: Celtics 34-8!*

:cheer:


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: OT: Celtics 34-8!*

These injuries had to be forseeable. These guys are all in there 30's, plenty of games will be missed by the three


----------



## bullscynic (Dec 19, 2007)

*Re: OT: Celtics 34-8!*

They are 41-9. Here's to hoping they lose at least 2 more games between now and the end of the season.


----------



## bullscynic (Dec 19, 2007)

41-11. Its now safe to say they aren't gonna break the record. :clap2:


----------

