# [62] - Celtics [18-43] vs Bulls [36-28]



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

yea...they are playing


----------



## pokpok (Jul 26, 2005)

*Re: game 60-something: Bulls @ Laughingstocks*

did gerald get away with a double dribble??


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

*Re: game 60-something: Bulls @ Laughingstocks*

I thought ABC dropped the game and it was scheduled for 6:30? Why did it start at 5:00?


----------



## pokpok (Jul 26, 2005)

*Re: game 60-something: Bulls @ Laughingstocks*

rondo pretty good early in the game


----------



## pokpok (Jul 26, 2005)

*Re: game 60-something: Bulls @ Laughingstocks*



Premier said:


> I thought ABC dropped the game and it was scheduled for 6:30? Why did it start at 5:00?


its 6 already...did u change your clock?


----------



## pokpok (Jul 26, 2005)

*Re: game 60-something: Bulls @ Laughingstocks*

deng with a nice dunk


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

*Re: game 60-something: Bulls @ Laughingstocks*



pokpok said:


> did gerald get away with a double dribble??




the most obvious double dribble ive ever seen...lol...


and yes prem change ur clock ahead lol


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: game 60-something: Bulls @ Laughingstocks*



pokpok said:


> its 6 already...did u change your clock?


LOL!

Come on Prem, get on with the program, you're lucky it's only Sunday. 

Celtics with the ugly jersey's, nice.


----------



## pokpok (Jul 26, 2005)

rondo... WOW.


----------



## pokpok (Jul 26, 2005)

wth? its stuck on the same screen for awhile and its still not fixed yet


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

hey...who changed my thread title...it was perfectly acceptable


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

By the way - Big Al doubters, still think he has no shot at being a 20/10 player?


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Maybe not tonight though. 

20 games left. We'll end up with the worst, or secod to worst record in the league.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

Causeway said:


> We'll end up with the worst, or secod to worst record in the league.




all hail danny ainges 5 year plan


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

*Re: game 60-something: Bulls @ Laughingstocks*



aquaitious said:


> LOL!
> 
> Come on Prem, get on with the program, you're lucky it's only Sunday.


I was expecting my computer to do that automatically. Guess not.


----------



## Truth34 (May 28, 2003)

I think if you look at the last 10 games, we are not laughingstocks.

The Bulls would be scary with a post player.

Danny did say it was a 5 year plan.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

i think if you look at the 50 games before them...we are


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> all hail danny ainges 5 year plan


:worthy: 

I still don't miss any of the sludge he sent away. Get a healthy Allen back, and monster in Big Al, Green looking better, Rondo looking good, West looking great, Pierce still in town, trade some youth for a vet probably - plus a lotto pick in a nasty draft. Looks nice to me.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

as long as that snake is fired before next season...looks nice to me too


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

Truth34 said:


> I think if you look at the last 10 games, we are not laughingstocks.
> 
> The Bulls would be scary with a post player.
> 
> Danny did say it was a 5 year plan.


It was a three year plan, it was completed -1.5 years ago.


----------



## Truth34 (May 28, 2003)

*Ainge Year 1*: Traded Antoine, Drafted Banks and Perkins, Got Ricky, Dumped Jim O'Brien

Record 36-46, swept in first round against Indiana

*Ainge Year 2*: Drafted Al, Delonte and Tony Allen. Hired Doc, Signed Payton and rented Antoine

Record 45-37, Atlantic Crown, Defeated 4-3 by Indiana

*Ainge Year 3*: Drafted Gerald and Ryan Gomes, dumped Ricky and Mark Blount in trade for Wally and future 1st rounder

Record 33-49

*Ainge Year 4*: Drafted Rondo and Leon Powe

Record not good, obviously



Yes, I remember it being a three year plan. But I am glad the Celtics have remained patient. The previous regime's quick-fixes like Vin Baker and trading Joe Johnson for one-year rentals of role players will never happen under Ainge. If he loses his job, so be it. The Celtics are building talent. There is no question that Al is a talent, that Gerald is a talent, that Gomes and Tony Allen are good role players. If we don't lose 4 key veterans this year, we are a playoff team. But our young players are going to help us a lot in the future.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

Truth34 said:


> The previous regime's quick-fixes like Vin Baker and trading Joe Johnson for one-year rentals of role players will never happen under Ainge.



no...because in order to need "one year rentals" you have to actually have a winning team who needs help in a playoff run...its a good thing that under ainge we will never have a winning team that is ready for a playoff run??? ok...


----------



## Truth34 (May 28, 2003)

What is your warped logic now?

That it was good to get Rogers and Delk, who were marginal contributors on a 44-win team in a weak Eastern Conference for a future All-Star?

Get over your hatred of Ainge...and be intellectually honest.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

at the time it was a great trade...we traded a young player who looked lost every time he stepped on the court for 2 key parts in a team that almost made the NBA finals...for all we knew joe johnson was going to turn out as kedrick brown did, out of the league...you cant look at a trade 5 years later and say we shouldnt have done that...the only mistake is that phoenix asked for either johnson or kedrick and we gave them jj...it was well worth the trade to have a shot at a NBA title...also considering we couldnt have kept him anyway with the max contract he earned himself...he would have played out his rookie contract and went elsewhere anyway...which is whats going to happen to 75% of our young players now as well


----------



## Truth34 (May 28, 2003)

first off, he didn't look lost, he looked passive.

second, phoenix didn't ask for kedrick. 

third, the celtics have fostered loyalty among the young players. perk signed for a fair deal, and big al says he wants to be a celtic for life. so let's just see what happens, shall we?


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

first, synonyms for "passive": apathetic, uninvolved, unassertive, sleepy, indifferent, latent, inactive etc...sounds like a guy that i wouldnt want to trade either...

second,


> The Celtics selected the 6-foot-7 Johnson out of Arkansas with the 10th pick of the 2001 draft, but the following February sent him to Phoenix in a deal for Tony Delk and Rodney Rogers...What makes that trade even more maddening for Boston fans is that the Celtics claimed at the time they had their choice of including Johnson or fellow rookie Kedrick Brown in the deal, and they kept Brown, who is now out of the league.


http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061217/COLUMN08/612170658/1009/SPORTS

and that was written only a few months ago...its common knowledge by now that the celtics had a choice on who to give up...if they didnt have a choice they wouldnt try to let it out that they did because it makes them look dumb that they made the wrong decision

and third...if big al "wants to be a celtic for life" and the celts offer him 7 million a year but the bobcats offer him 12 million a year do you really think he will stay with the celtics to abide by his comment...dont believe anything that atheletes say...99% of the time its all about money


----------



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

Truth34 said:


> first off, he didn't look lost, he looked passive.
> 
> second, phoenix didn't ask for kedrick.


They were willing to take either. The Pilsbury Draftboy opted to keep Brown because Brown was his guy.



Truth34 said:


> third, the celtics have fostered loyalty among the young players. perk signed for a fair deal, and big al says he wants to be a celtic for life. so let's just see what happens, shall we?


Perkins contract was more than fair given how badly he's played this season. In retrospect it's fair to guess that he and his agent knew what he would look like post surgery, and opted for the guaranteed money over going into this summer looking for someone to cut him a deal. Jefferson isn't in the same boat.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

Truth34 said:


> What is your warped logic now?
> 
> That it was good to get Rogers and Delk, who were marginal contributors on a 44-win team in a weak Eastern Conference for a future All-Star?
> 
> Get over your hatred of Ainge...and be intellectually honest.


Rodney Rogers was definitely not a "marginal" contributor, he was pretty much a catalyst in the whole ride. Yeah, he was fat, out of the league now, but he did more than handle his fair share for us to get to the ECF.




Truth34 said:


> second, phoenix didn't ask for kedrick.


Phoenix didn't only ask for Kedrick, they preferred him over Johnson.



Truth34 said:


> third, the celtics have fostered loyalty among the young players. perk signed for a fair deal, and big al says he wants to be a celtic for life. so let's just see what happens, shall we?


What happened after Perk signed that deal? 

Perk said "Do you think I'm happy with this?"

It'll be a hard thing to do keeping Pierce and Al, nevermind trying to get a contract for West, Gomes and Green to satisfy their needs.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Most likely we will not be able to keep all the young guys. And most likely there would not be enough minutes to keep them happy anyway. So we have some great chips to trade for a nice vet. This is a bad thing?


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

aquaitious said:


> It was a three year plan, it was completed -1.5 years ago.


What was a three year plan? I don't know exactly what Ainge said - but no way do you come into a team, get rid of the entire team except for one player - Pierce - build through the draft, and have a championship team in three years. There was no plan at all that would have taken the team we had and making it a banner team in 3 years - short of signing free agents - free agents that did not want to play in Boston anyway.

So if it takes longer than 5 years - but he builds a championship team - is that considered a failure?


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

Causeway said:


> Most likely we will not be able to keep all the young guys. And most likely there would not be enough minutes to keep them happy anyway. So we have some great chips to trade for a nice vet. This is a bad thing?


It's a very bad then when people expect all those players to contribute and be great on _this_ team.

Jefferson, Green, West, Gomes will not help this team, no matter how great they are, if they're winning games for another one.



Causeway said:


> What was a three year plan?


Re-inventing sliced bread was a three year plan.



Causeway said:


> I don't know exactly what Ainge said - but no way do you come into a team, get rid of the entire team except for one player - Pierce - build through the draft, and have a championship team in three years. There was no plan at all that would have taken the team we had and making it a banner team in 3 years - short of signing free agents - free agents that did not want to play in Boston anyway.


Hey, I didn't call it a three year plan, it was Danny. But while we're at it, making a championship team within three years is possible...even in the NBA.



Causeway said:


> So if it takes longer than 5 years - but he builds a championship team - is that considered a failure?


Why don't we ask Danny?


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

aquaitious said:


> It's a very bad then when people expect all those players to contribute and be great on _this_ team.
> 
> Jefferson, Green, West, Gomes will not help this team, no matter how great they are, if they're winning games for another one.


Again - if we are not able to keep all those guys, that does not mean they are not valuable to the Celtics. Those are all VERY tradeable players and should return nice value. And we will not have to trade everybody.




aquaitious said:


> Hey, I didn't call it a three year plan, it was Danny. But while we're at it, making a championship team within three years is possible...even in the NBA.


Of course it is possible. But it all depends what you start with. It is well known that stud FA's don't have much desire to come to Boston. The team Ainge took over was full of mostly sludge that at best could be traded for picks. That is not a quick path. It's one that requires patience. 





aquaitious said:


> Why don't we ask Danny?


I asked you. You keep talking about the 3 year plan.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

Causeway said:


> Those are all VERY tradeable players and should return nice value. And we will not have to trade everybody.




lets look at dannys track record...there are no washed up players with no knees and ridiculously large contracts left out there for ainge to get so realistically he wont be making any trades


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

While that is a popular and easy swipe at Ainge - there is a huge difference between having chips to work with like Gomes, Jefferson, Green, West, Allen, Rondo etc. as opposed to the sludge he has moved. To move junk you have to take on junk.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

Causeway said:


> Again - if we are not able to keep all those guys, that does not mean they are not valuable to the Celtics. Those are all VERY tradeable players and should return nice value. And we will not have to trade everybody.


We will also not be able to keep everyone, let's stop acting like those guys are locked up for the future.



Causeway said:


> Of course it is possible. But it all depends what you start with. It is well known that stud FA's don't have much desire to come to Boston. The team Ainge took over was full of mostly sludge that at best could be traded for picks. That is not a quick path. It's one that requires patience.


Please save me from this BS of "FA's don't want to come to Boston."

Give them money and they'll go to Atlanta.

And no, Danny could have chosen a quick path, he decided not to and kept the team from getting better and worse, both of which hurt the C's.



Causeway said:


> I asked you. You keep talking about the 3 year plan.


It was his plan, and no, he won't built a championship team within five teams.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

aquaitious said:


> We will also not be able to keep everyone, let's stop acting like those guys are locked up for the future.


Who said they were? Keep them or trade them - that's both an asset - thanks to Ainge - no?



aquaitious said:


> Please save me from this BS of "FA's don't want to come to Boston."
> 
> Give them money and they'll go to Atlanta.


Atlanta is more favorable than Boston to FA's. Warmer weather and better town for African Americans (at least for black FA's). But let's say you are right and FA's are lining up to come to Boston if only Boston would throw money at them. We have owners not throwing cash around. Not Danny's fault. So either way, the FA path is not an option. 




aquaitious said:


> And no, Danny could have chosen a quick path, he decided not to and kept the team from getting better and worse, both of which hurt the C's.


Please tell me this quick path to a banner Ainge ignored?




aquaitious said:


> It was his plan, and no, he won't built a championship team within five teams.


That was not the question.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

Causeway said:


> To move junk you have to take on junk.




hate him or not...antoine was putting up 20-8-5 in his last year before ainge got trigger happy and ricky was putting up 20-5-5 the half season before ainge got rid of him...doesnt seem like junk to me...we sure as hell took on junk tho


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> hate him or not...antoine was putting up 20-8-5 in his last year before ainge got trigger happy and ricky was putting up 20-5-5 the half season before ainge got rid of him...doesnt seem like junk to me...we sure as hell took on junk tho


Ricky Davis debate is pointless. He reportedly was traded for reasons not based only on numbers. People don't believe that for some reason, even with past and present issues. So be it.

The roster Ainge took over was not full of Antoine Walkers (fortunately). Here it is, once again:

Paul Pierce 
Antoine Walker 
Eric Williams 
Tony Delk 
J.R. Bremer 
Walter McCarty 
Tony Battie 
Shammond Williams 
Vin Baker 
Kedrick Brown 
Mark Blount 
Grant Long 
Bimbo Coles 
Bruno Sundov 
Ruben Wolkowyski 
Mark Bryant 
Mikki Moore 

Good luck quickly turning that into a banner winner, and good luck moving those guys to gain draft picks, without taking on any junk.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

Causeway said:


> The roster Ainge took over was not full of Antoine Walkers (fortunately). Here it is, once again:
> 
> Paul Pierce
> Antoine Walker
> ...



soemtimes the whole adds up to MUCH more than the sum of its parts...sure gerald might be better than delk and Al might be better then eric williams...but like it or not the team you just listed won 49 games...49...and was within 2 games of the nba finals...much closer than we are or will be in the next 5 years


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

Causeway said:


> Who said they were? *Keep them* or trade them - that's both an asset - thanks to Ainge - no?


Who said that? You just did, again.



Causeway said:


> Atlanta is more favorable than Boston to FA's. Warmer weather and better town for African Americans (at least for black FA's). But let's say you are right and FA's are lining up to come to Boston if only Boston would throw money at them. We have owners not throwing cash around. Not Danny's fault. So either way, the FA path is not an option.


Not really, you can give a guy, say 17 million, and let's name him Paul Pierce, and he'll come/stay in Boston.

Sorry, I don't see anyone rejecting multi millions more just because they'll be a bit cold over a one month period in Massachusetts (remember, they're on the road about 50%).



Causeway said:


> Please tell me this quick path to a banner Ainge ignored?


Suck for a season or two and get a high draft pick instead of being a 30 win team?



Causeway said:


> That was not the question.


No, it wouldn't. But he won't, and yes his three year plan is a failure.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

aquaitious said:


> Who said that? You just did, again.


Give me a break - I said keep them or trade them. We will keep SOME of the youth. That's good. We will trade SOME of the youth for vet help. That will be good. I not one time said we'd keep ALL the young guys. And that's fine.




> Not really, you can give a guy, say 17 million, and let's name him Paul Pierce, and he'll come/stay in Boston.


Not the same. And again - our owners are not throwing money all over the place. Not Ainge's fault.



> Sorry, I don't see anyone rejecting multi millions more just because they'll be a bit cold over a one month period in Massachusetts (remember, they're on the road about 50%).


Again - what FA are these owners throwing millions at??




> Suck for a season or two and get a high draft pick instead of being a 30 win team?


2006-2007 - the best draft year since Ainge has been here by the way.




> No, it wouldn't. But he won't, and yes his three year plan is a failure.


He will. And no, it's not.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> soemtimes the whole adds up to MUCH more than the sum of its parts...sure gerald might be better than delk and Al might be better then eric williams...but like it or not the team you just listed won 49 games...49...and was within 2 games of the nba finals...much closer than we are or will be in the next 5 years


So would would have done what - kept that team as is and assume it was going to go further than it did? You think that team as is was built to win a championship? I guess we'll have to disagree.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

Causeway said:


> Give me a break - I said keep them or trade them. We will keep SOME of the youth. That's good. We will trade SOME of the youth for vet help. That will be good. I not one time said we'd keep ALL the young guys. And that's fine.


Then we need to stop thinking they'll be great players for us in the future. And when I answer a question it isn't directed only towards you, but towards the whole community, which thinks that.



Causeway said:


> Not the same. And again - our owners are not throwing money all over the place. Not Ainge's fault.


Uh, would you be "throwing money all over the place?" If it were my team, I wouldn't do it either, because paying the luxury tax for three/four extra wins per year would not really help much.




Causeway said:


> Again - what FA are these owners throwing millions at??


Give me one instance when the Celtics had cap money to go after a player and the player rejected more money to come back here "because it was cold."

In fact, give me one instance when the Celtics were under the cap to sign a free agent.



Causeway said:


> 2006-2007 - the best draft year since Ainge has been here by the way.


It is, no denying that, it's also one of the better drafts in recent memory.




Causeway said:


> He will. And no, it's not.


Good to know that turing a playoff team into a team that struggles to win 30 wins per season is now considered a accomplishment.

Let's hope Danny doesn't **** up getting a good pick with Pierce constantly playing. What's worse, if Pierce keeps aggravating that sholder of his, we may not get a good pick and lose him. That ought to be fun.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

Causeway said:


> So would would have done what - kept that team as is and assume it was going to go further than it did? You think that team as is was built to win a championship? I guess we'll have to disagree.




its not even a question tho...that team "As is" made it farther than any celtic team in 15 years...and when danny made the only good trade in his life by sending eric williams and kedrick brown for ricky davis he proved you dont have to have high scale players to make good trades...im not saying he should have kept them together for 5 years...they had JUST made the ECF...give them another year or 2 to see what they can do...make minor trades to see if you can improve the team...if not...get rid of EVERYONE, including pierce...and we are in the same boat here in 07...the only difference being we would have had another couple of seasons of winning basketball to see what that team could have done...in 5 years we went from a 49 win team to a 20 win team...if somehow you think thats a good thing, then well i dunno...




> 2006-2007 - the best draft year since Ainge has been here by the way.


last years was pretty good too...we would have been able to get a rookie of the year candidate with the pick we had...and he ****ed that up as well...dont give the guy too much credit as he has already proven he has the IQ of a doornob


----------



## Truth34 (May 28, 2003)

*Backing up Causeway*

Let me back up Causeway and say that we have NEVER signed a big-name FA here to play for the Celtics.

That roster maxed out its potential in a weak conference.

Danny bought out Vin Baker, and got young talent. I think we can safely say now that Jefferson is a player, and that Gomes and West are solid role players.

The Telfair trade, while a short-term disaster, frees up money to re-sign Jefferson long-term. So you have Pierce and Jefferson, and now you just need a third stud and we're a contender.


----------



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

*Re: Backing up Causeway*



Truth34 said:


> Let me back up Causeway and say that we have NEVER signed a big-name FA here to play for the Celtics.


Not true. They have indeed signed free agents, and in one case matched an offer to a free agent that signed with _Milwaukee_. Horrific cold and high taxes didn't stop the Little General from inking a deal with the Bucks (which Boston matched), and hadn't stopped the Little General from pushing for a trade to Boston (from Miami) in the first place. Whenever Boston has had the coin to offer free agents, they always found takers for the money. Now, there's no question that the incompetent boobs that have been running this franchise for almost two decades have targeted the wrong free agents, but the biggest impediment that Boston has had to free agent signings over the last 15 years is crappy payroll management and overall front office incompetence.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Anyone care to expalin the Walker-LaFrentz trade? Or the Davis-Szczerbiak trade [why Szczerbiak and why not an expiring?]?


----------



## Truth34 (May 28, 2003)

Yes, we traded for Douglas, who had wore out his welcome down there.

Name one free agent we have signed that has been a marqee name.

You can't name one.

But we could get somebody in trade if we had the right pieces.


----------



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

Truth34 said:


> Yes, we traded for Douglas, who had wore out his welcome down there.


Douglas had not "worn out his welcome", he was a holdout for a new contract. He was an NBA All-Rookie first team member. When Miami wouldn't give him what he wanted he refused to play and pushed Miami's management for a trade to either Boston or New York. Eventually they dealt him to Boston. When free agency came Milwaukee leaped in with a seven year $15 million contract offer which the Celtics matched. But Sherm had zero qualms about leaving warm, low tax Florida for the cold & money of Boston, and none about signing an offer sheet for a team that plays in the arctic circle with higher taxes than Boston. As much as you want to claim that "no free agent will ever sign with Boston" the truth is that it's all about the Benjamins. If Boston had them to offer, free agents would come. The problem is that they haven't had them in the right years because of crappy cap management.



Truth34 said:


> Name one free agent we have signed that has been a marqee name.


The reason you're going to lose this argument is that it's advanced by loser fans to excuse the ineptitude of Celtics management in the Jan Volk & Later era. Let's start with the obvious, Bill Walton. He had no troubles identifying Boston as the team he wanted to play for. Bob McAdoo had no troubles leaving the New York nightlife to sign with the Celtics. Xavier McDaniel was considered a premier free agent when Boston signed him. His injury plagued season in New York didn't set off alarm bells around the NBA, and Boston won the bidding war for his services (hoorah). Dominique Wilkins scored 26 p/g the year before Boston won the bidding war for his services. They also had no troubles landing another all star PG, and MIP winner, in Dana Barros. Whenever they had the coin to spend, they found willing takers. Had they done their homework better, had Gavitt, Carr, Pitino, Wallace, or Ainge been better GMs, they wouldn't have had any problems signing them of late. However, as the latest CBA further tips the hand towards the hometeam, they need to look at sign & trades these days. Of course, with Danny at the helm you can bet any sign & trades for premier free agents will just make the team worse. The fact that the signings haven't worked out for the Celtics doesn't mean that the players they signed weren't considered valuable, just that the Celtics weren't doing their homework.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

Premier said:


> Anyone care to expalin the Walker-LaFrentz trade? Or the Davis-Szczerbiak trade [why Szczerbiak and why not an expiring?]?



i will!! dumb, and dumber...well actually dumber and dumb in that order but it sounded better the first way haha


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

aquaitious said:


> Then we need to stop thinking they'll be great players for us in the future. And when I answer a question it isn't directed only towards you, but towards the whole community, which thinks that.


Some will be here. Some will be traded for other players that could be good for us in the future. Simple. And when you quote (and bold) my comments, I am not sure how that means it is directed towards the whole.




aquaitious said:


> Give me one instance when the Celtics had cap money to go after a player and the player rejected more money to come back here "because it was cold."
> 
> In fact, give me one instance when the Celtics were under the cap to sign a free agent.


Then I think we can agree that the FA path is not one that Danny had the option to take. No?




aquaitious said:


> Good to know that turing a playoff team into a team that struggles to win 30 wins per season is now considered a accomplishment.


Yes we were a playoff team. One that was not going up from there. The Knicks probably will be a playoff team this year as well. 



Premier said:


> Anyone care to expalin the Walker-LaFrentz trade? Or the Davis-Szczerbiak trade [why Szczerbiak and why not an expiring?]?


Walker was traded straight up for Raef? I must have missed that. Davis was straight up for Wally? Missed that too.


Edit aqua. Unnecessary.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

Causeway said:


> Then I think we can agree that the FA path is not one that Danny had the option to take. No?


Yes, we can agree to that, just like we can agree that he got us three players in the last four season that have sat out 60% or more a season, in three of his four years here.

He had the "option" he went the other way.




Causeway said:


> Yes we were a playoff team. One that was not going up from there. The Knicks probably will be a playoff team this year as well.


Let's not compare the 02-03 Celtics to today's Knicks, who're run by a moron GM and Coach and have a seven billion dollar pay role.

The Celtics had their fair share of problems, but you either build around that team or you rebuild. You can't have both, Danny somehow got in the middle of those two.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

aquaitious said:


> Let's not compare the 02-03 Celtics to today's Knicks, who're run by a moron GM and Coach and have a seven billion dollar pay role.


Point being that not all playoff teams are created equal. People keep saying "we were a playoff team, now we are not! This is what Danny has done!!!". Just because you are in the playoffs does not mean you are in great shape going forward.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

ehmunro said:


> The reason you're going to lose this argument is that it's advanced by loser fans to excuse the ineptitude of Celtics management in the Jan Volk & Later era.


Good thing we have winner fans also!




> Let's start with the obvious, Bill Walton. He had no troubles identifying Boston as the team he wanted to play for.


When you have guys like Larry Bird - who we got through the draft, it helps get FA's. 



> Bob McAdoo had no troubles leaving the New York nightlife to sign with the Celtics.


He was traded to the Celtics.




> Xavier McDaniel was considered a premier free agent when Boston signed him. His injury plagued season in New York didn't set off alarm bells around the NBA, and Boston won the bidding war for his services (hoorah).


He averaged 13.7 ppg and 5.6 rpg the year before he signed with Boston. Hardly a stud.



> Dominique Wilkins scored 26 p/g the year before Boston won the bidding war for his services.


He was in his 13th year in the league and he left the Celtics after one season.




> They also had no troubles landing another all star PG, and MIP winner, in Dana Barros.


Local, BC kid. Wanted to play for his hometown team.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Causeway said:


> Walker was traded straight up for Raef? I must have missed that. Davis was straight up for Wally? Missed that too.


Would you like me to type out as the "Ricky Davis, Marcus Banks, Justin Reed, Mark Blount-Wally Szczerbiak, '10 first-round selection, Michael Olowkandi" trade? It's a label and I'm sure with your level of intelligence that you could've understood my intention.


----------



## Truth34 (May 28, 2003)

ehmunro said:


> Douglas had not "worn out his welcome", he was a holdout for a new contract. He was an NBA All-Rookie first team member. When Miami wouldn't give him what he wanted he refused to play and pushed Miami's management for a trade to either Boston or New York. Eventually they dealt him to Boston. When free agency came Milwaukee leaped in with a seven year $15 million contract offer which the Celtics matched. But Sherm had zero qualms about leaving warm, low tax Florida for the cold & money of Boston, and none about signing an offer sheet for a team that plays in the arctic circle with higher taxes than Boston. As much as you want to claim that "no free agent will ever sign with Boston" the truth is that it's all about the Benjamins. If Boston had them to offer, free agents would come. The problem is that they haven't had them in the right years because of crappy cap management.
> 
> 
> 
> The reason you're going to lose this argument is that it's advanced by loser fans to excuse the ineptitude of Celtics management in the Jan Volk & Later era. Let's start with the obvious, Bill Walton. He had no troubles identifying Boston as the team he wanted to play for. Bob McAdoo had no troubles leaving the New York nightlife to sign with the Celtics. Xavier McDaniel was considered a premier free agent when Boston signed him. His injury plagued season in New York didn't set off alarm bells around the NBA, and Boston won the bidding war for his services (hoorah). Dominique Wilkins scored 26 p/g the year before Boston won the bidding war for his services. They also had no troubles landing another all star PG, and MIP winner, in Dana Barros. Whenever they had the coin to spend, they found willing takers. Had they done their homework better, had Gavitt, Carr, Pitino, Wallace, or Ainge been better GMs, they wouldn't have had any problems signing them of late. However, as the latest CBA further tips the hand towards the hometeam, they need to look at sign & trades these days. Of course, with Danny at the helm you can bet any sign & trades for premier free agents will just make the team worse. The fact that the signings haven't worked out for the Celtics doesn't mean that the players they signed weren't considered valuable, just that the Celtics weren't doing their homework.


I don't count players we traded for like Walton, Douglas or others. But when you're talking about Boston vs. Milwaukee, it's a no-brainer. The tradition and perhaps one of the few cities that have worse weather than Boston, no brainer.

We were Barros' hometown, and I would argue with you that Boston was one of the few teams stupid enough to pay a 5'8" non-defender to a deal of that size. X and Nique were second-tier at best. You lose this argument.

Don't group Ainge in with those others as far as free agent signings. I don't think that's fair. He hasn't signed a Barros or a Travis Knight. Nor has he traded away guys like Billups or Joe Johnson for second-tier veterans. Nor has he drafted a Kedrick Brown, Michael Smith or Jerome Moiso.


----------



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

Truth34 said:


> I don't count players we traded for like Walton, Douglas or others. But when you're talking about Boston vs. Milwaukee, it's a no-brainer. The tradition and perhaps one of the few cities that have worse weather than Boston, no brainer.


Walton was a free agent, the entire deal was a proto-sign & trade (i.e. the Clippers could sign him, as their own free agent, to whatever they wanted, so they signed him and traded him for Max). As for Douglas, in _that_ bidding war he _chose_ Milwaukee because they offered more. Because he was a restricted free agent Boston had the option of matching, and so they did. That was the point. After holding out in Miami, specifically to force a trade to Boston or New York, he chose to sign with a team in a worse climate with worse taxes. Why? The money. There are two lures to grabbing free agents. You have to either offer them a shot at a ring or a payday. Back in the 80s Boston could offer players a shot at a ring, so players willingly signed with the Celtics (or worked out sign & trades like Walton). In the days since Boston's had to offer more money, because of poor payroll management (Gavitt never even considered the contracts of other team's players when planning his payroll), they didn't have the right money in the right years to land a T-Mac. That isn't some mystical curse, it's ****ing bad management.

Do you see Utah fans *****ing about free agent's "refusing to go to Utah"? No. Why? Because Utah generally makes better signings (i.e. they've managed their payroll better and signed players that worked out for them). Utah has bad weather, no nightlife, is mostly a dry state, and 3% of the state's African-American population plays for the Jazz, Cougars, & Utes. And yet basketball players always sign on the dotted line when the Jazz are offering the coin. Go figure. Minnestoa & Milwaukee don't seem to have any trouble finding free agents, they have worse weather, higher taxes, and not much of a night life to speak of. Why are they able to convince free agents to go there? Oh, that's right, I forgot about the Celtics' "curse". This magical curse where the Celtics alone of sports teams in cold weather/high tax areas can't convince free agents to sign with them. This doesn't seem to effect the Bills, Raptors, Patriots, Red Sox, Islanders, Flyers, 76ers, Phillies, Packers (Jesus, I mean talk about cold weather/high taxes), Tigers, White Sox, Cubs, Bulls, Bears, Indians, Reds, Cavaliers, Browns, Bengals, Blue Jackets, Black Hawks, Wild or Vikings. Just the Celtics. Yep, it's a curse. Truly. It's not bad management and ownership, it's a mystical curse.



Truth34 said:


> We were Barros' hometown, and I would argue with you that Boston was one of the few teams stupid enough to pay a 5'8" non-defender to a deal of that size. X and Nique were second-tier at best. You lose this argument.


I lose the argument because Boston won bidding wars for highly sought after free agents? What?



Truth34 said:


> Don't group Ainge in with those others as far as free agent signings. I don't think that's fair. He hasn't signed a Barros or a Travis Knight. Nor has he traded away guys like Billups or Joe Johnson for second-tier veterans. Nor has he drafted a Kedrick Brown, Michael Smith or Jerome Moiso.


He did draft a Marcus Banks over better players, and a Kendrick Perkins over a borderline All-Star (despite his self-proclaimed ability to find all stars late in the draft). He also picked a Tony Allen over a Kevin Martin, screwed Boston's payroll to holy hell, signed Mr. Moobs (rather than one of several better players making similar money or less), squandered an incredibly valuable trade exception on Danwise Dickau (and just a few months later Detroit would give away Darko to reduce the payroll in anticipation of re-signing Ben Wallace) and traded the rookie of the year for Sebastien Telfair, who with a lot of hard work just might be able to make it on the And1 Tour. Believe me, he's earned his place with the rest of those jokers.


----------



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

Premier said:


> Would you like me to type out as the "Ricky Davis, Marcus Banks, Justin Reed, Mark Blount-Wally Szczerbiak, '10 first-round selection, Michael Olowkandi" trade? It's a label and I'm sure with your level of intelligence that you could've understood my intention.


Edit aqua.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

ehmunro said:


> Walton was a free agent, the entire deal was a proto-sign & trade (i.e. the Clippers could sign him, as their own free agent, to whatever they wanted, so they signed him and traded him for Max). As for Douglas, in _that_ bidding war he _chose_ Milwaukee because they offered more. Because he was a restricted free agent Boston had the option of matching, and so they did. That was the point. After holding out in Miami, specifically to force a trade to Boston or New York, he chose to sign with a team in a worse climate with worse taxes. Why? The money. There are two lures to grabbing free agents. You have to either offer them a shot at a ring or a payday. Back in the 80s Boston could offer players a shot at a ring, so players willingly signed with the Celtics (or worked out sign & trades like Walton). In the days since Boston's had to offer more money, because of poor payroll management (Gavitt never even considered the contracts of other team's players when planning his payroll), they didn't have the right money in the right years to land a T-Mac. That isn't some mystical curse, it's ****ing bad management.
> 
> Do you see Utah fans *****ing about free agent's "refusing to go to Utah"? No. Why? Because Utah generally makes better signings (i.e. they've managed their payroll better and signed players that worked out for them). Utah has bad weather, no nightlife, is mostly a dry state, and 3% of the state's African-American population plays for the Jazz, Cougars, & Utes. And yet basketball players always sign on the dotted line when the Jazz are offering the coin. Go figure. Minnestoa & Milwaukee don't seem to have any trouble finding free agents, they have worse weather, higher taxes, and not much of a night life to speak of. Why are they able to convince free agents to go there? Oh, that's right, I forgot about the Celtics' "curse". This magical curse where the Celtics alone of sports teams in cold weather/high tax areas can't convince free agents to sign with them. This doesn't seem to effect the Bills, Raptors, Patriots, Red Sox, Islanders, Flyers, 76ers, Phillies, Packers (Jesus, I mean talk about cold weather/high taxes), Tigers, White Sox, Cubs, Bulls, Bears, Indians, Reds, Cavaliers, Browns, Bengals, Blue Jackets, Black Hawks, Wild or Vikings. Just the Celtics. Yep, it's a curse. Truly. It's not bad management and ownership, it's a mystical curse.
> 
> ...



No mention of Danny building two championship teams in the Pistons and Heat?

Give him some credit.


----------



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

Excuse me, did that really deserve an edit? I was agreeing with Causeway. :bsmile:


----------

