# Chucky Atkins



## jvanbusk (Jun 9, 2002)

You may think you got a raw deal, but you are going to love this guy. He brings alot of great energy to the court and on the court and off the court has a great personality. He's one of the quickest guys you will find in the NBA. I'm sad to see him leave the Pistons, but of course I'll take Sheed.  

Good luck to Chucky and the C's the rest of the year. I now have 1 legitimate reason not to hate the Celtics.


----------



## zerotre (Sep 28, 2002)

They think they got a raw deal because they DID get one. I must give Joe D some props though, trading away non-core team members for wallace? Thats some skillz right there, how'd he do it.


----------



## Clockwork24 (Nov 21, 2003)

I've always liked Atkins, but I hate his contract, tough - the contract doesn't mean anything to this team since we have alot of room now. 

Atkins is a good player, just as good, and can be even better than Mike James. I'm glad he was brought over.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Clockwork24</b>!
> I've always liked Atkins, but I hate his contract, tough - the contract doesn't mean anything to this team since we have alot of room now.
> 
> Atkins is a good player, just as good, and can be even better than Mike James. I'm glad he was brought over.


Really? We get a lot of room now? Cap space? 

How?

We trade away a 6 million expiring contract and get a 3 million expiring contract, and all of a sudden we have more room?


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Clockwork24</b>!
> I've always liked Atkins, but I hate his contract, tough - the contract doesn't mean anything to this team since we have alot of room now.
> 
> Atkins is a good player, just as good, and can be even better than Mike James. I'm glad he was brought over.


You had better re-check your facts, we DO NOT have a lot of room. We have no room. They said even IF Bakers contract is allowed to come off we will just miss the luxury tax, we have NO ROOM. Atkins may be a little better than James but James was a LOT cheaper and not that bad.


----------



## adamatic (Jan 7, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>whiterhino</b>!
> 
> 
> You had better re-check your facts, we DO NOT have a lot of room. We have no room. They said even IF Bakers contract is allowed to come off we will just miss the luxury tax, we have NO ROOM. Atkins may be a little better than James but James was a LOT cheaper and not that bad.


If all of Baker's money comes off, we'll be pretty far under the luxury tax, actually.

All in all though, the difference between Mike James for the next two years (which he'd get a multi year higher than the vet min) and Atkins for the next two years, with respect to what we can do to maneuver under the cap, is negligible.


----------



## jbs (May 4, 2003)

Interview with Atkins in the Herald. I certainly like his optimism and enthusiasm. The Celtics need more of this:
http://celtics.bostonherald.com/celtics/celtics.bg?articleid=395



> Atkins sits again
> 
> _____Newest Celtic Chucky Atkins still was unable to play after an incision in his neck to remove a lymph node limited his head mobility. Once he's ready to go (he's looking at Wednesday against Milwaukee), he hopes to be a good fit. For now, the 5-foot-11 point guard outwardly is undeterred by the fact he lost more than 10 wins in the transaction, going from a Pistons club looking to make a run at the Eastern Conference title to a Celtics outfit with fading hopes of landing the last playoff spot.
> 
> _____``I just can't wait to get on the court with these guys,'' he said. ``I'm on a new team with a new situation. It's a good situation. Things look a little down right now, but I've been in this situation before. We've got some good talent on this team and just like things changed and went bad, they can change and get good. I was on a team this year where I won 13 in a row and then right after that we lost six in a row. See what I'm saying? I know the situation seems bad, but it ain't all that bad. Raef is out and he'll be back, which is going to be a big lift. He might not be back this year, but that's going to be a big lift for us. Things will get good.''


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>adamatic</b>!
> 
> 
> If all of Baker's money comes off, we'll be pretty far under the luxury tax, actually.
> ...


No, actually, we will NOT be way under the luxury tax, look it up.


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jbs</b>!
> Interview with Atkins in the Herald. I certainly like his optimism and enthusiasm. The Celtics need more of this:
> http://celtics.bostonherald.com/celtics/celtics.bg?articleid=395


Chucky will be a good veteran with a positive attitude to have on this team, he's not a difference maker in terms of his floor potential but his experience factor and age will help...this team right now needs some veteran speak....I feel like the Chicago Bulls right now. 


Off the subject, if I've seemed testy in any of my posts lately I apologize, I've just been so disgusted I think it's coming out in my posts...I don't mean to take it out on fellow suffering Celt fans:no:


----------



## mrsister (Sep 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>whiterhino</b>!
> 
> 
> No, actually, we will NOT be way under the luxury tax, look it up.


Regardless, I think the owners should just suck it up and pay the damn luxury tax in order to get someone good to play here. Did they pay a record amount for the team and raise ticket prices so fans would lose interest in a crappy team? This is about making money, and you have to spend money to make money. Take a page from Cuban's and the Maloof brother's books.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mrsister</b>!
> 
> and the Maloof brother's books.


I heard they are in deep ****, they can't pay back their loans to their banks....yet they still spend so much money on players...


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>mrsister</b>!
> 
> 
> Regardless, I think the owners should just suck it up and pay the damn luxury tax in order to get someone good to play here. Did they pay a record amount for the team and raise ticket prices so fans would lose interest in a crappy team? This is about making money, and you have to spend money to make money. Take a page from Cuban's and the Maloof brother's books.



Oh I really wish they'd do that but I've heard the financial rumblings too but hey ya know if they can't afford it then they should sell the team to someone who can because a great franchise like the Celtics deserves better. The ticket prices are ridiculous, I ALWAYS go to games and I havn't gone to any this year (I've watched almost all of them though on TV). I mean when you put a crappy product on the floor and raise ticket prices like that what do they expect?!?


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

Chucky may be the first true point guard to take the floor for the Celts since DJ!:grinning:


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>whiterhino</b>!
> Chucky may be the first true point guard to take the floor for the Celts since DJ!:grinning:


14/9 Last Night in 43 minutes and NO turnovers..

The Celtics are Destroying Banks' confindence..


----------



## mrsister (Sep 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Celts11</b>!
> 
> 
> 14/9 Last Night in 43 minutes and NO turnovers..
> ...


Maybe a little, but I think it will benefit Banks to have a guy like Chucky to learn from. If Banks can learn to pass, he will be a player.


----------



## Bad Bartons (Aug 23, 2002)

I like the Atkins aquisition.

He just may be the best point in Boston since DJ.


----------



## SavSicc (Feb 26, 2004)

*chucky atikins should just sit on the bench*

So marcus Banks can play and we can get the 1 pick.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>mrsister</b>!
> 
> 
> Maybe a little, but I think it will benefit Banks to have a guy like Chucky to learn from. If Banks can learn to pass, he will be a player.


Mentors are Overrated IMO and Experience is more Valuable.


----------



## mrsister (Sep 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Celts11</b>!
> 
> 
> Mentors are Overrated IMO and Experience is more Valuable.


Some things can be learned from experience. Others have to be taught. Since the Celtics' coaching staff seems incapable of teaching a PG, another PG is the next best thing. Unfortunately, a lot of players who get mentored, often have to move to another team before they shine. Hopefully, Chucky is only a temporary fix. As much as I like what he brings, he's not the future of the team.


----------



## sologigolos (May 27, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>mrsister</b>!
> 
> 
> Some things can be learned from experience. Others have to be taught. Since the Celtics' coaching staff seems incapable of teaching a PG, another PG is the next best thing. Unfortunately, a lot of players who get mentored, often have to move to another team before they shine. Hopefully, Chucky is only a temporary fix. As much as I like what he brings, he's not the future of the team.


i think being a pg in general has too much to "learn" to just throw a rookie in there.


----------



## Big John (Sep 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>keilhur</b>!
> 
> 
> i think being a pg in general has too much to "learn" to just throw a rookie in there.


I'll tell you Banks' problems in a nutshell. There are two:

1. He doesn't have NBA 3 point range.

2. He's a good up tempo player who the Celtics coaching staff tried to turn into a half court player. Right now Banks is all screwed up because of that. He doesn't know what he should be doing.

O'Brien had a college coach's mentality: he hated turnovers. With a player like Banks, you simply have to live with a certain number of turnovers.

Atkins is a much better role model for Banks than Mike James. James was a terrible up tempo player. He looked at his feet when he dribbled instead of looking to make the pass. Delk redux. Chuckie, in contrast, is a competent NBA point guard who sees the floor. He'll never be an all-star, but he's a significant upgrade over James.


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Big John</b>!
> 
> 
> I'll tell you Banks' problems in a nutshell. There are two:
> ...


Well said John, I totally agree with all of that.


----------



## adamatic (Jan 7, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>whiterhino</b>!
> 
> 
> No, actually, we will NOT be way under the luxury tax, look it up.


Yes, we WILL be under the luxury tax.

You go look it up.

http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/boston.htm

Looks like we're well under 57 mill.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>adamatic</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes, we WILL be under the luxury tax.
> ...


Vin Baker, Walter McCarty, and most importantly Chris Mihm will either be paid much more then he gets now, or he'll be on a different team.

We are looking at a 50 million team next season WITHOUT the MLE.


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>adamatic</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes, we WILL be under the luxury tax.
> ...


I said we won't be WAY under....BIG DIFFERENCE being under means NOTHING, you must be way under to be able to get players [strike]PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT IS WRITTEN B4 YOU BUTT IN![/strike]

Eeeeeeasy big fella. Seriously though, calm down before posting, that's just not ok. ---agoo


----------



## adamatic (Jan 7, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>aquaitious</b>!
> 
> 
> Vin Baker, Walter McCarty, and most importantly Chris Mihm will either be paid much more then he gets now, or he'll be on a different team.
> ...


Until Baker's money goes back on, I'm considering it off the cap. McCarty makes peanuts so who cares, and Mihm should get about 5 I would think, so that'll bring us from 42 ish to 47 or 48 ish. Then you add on the MLE, and we're up to 54 or so. Still well under the 56-58 luxury tax. And for what its worth, its been rumored that there may not even be a luxury tax next year.


----------



## adamatic (Jan 7, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>whiterhino</b>!
> 
> 
> I said we won't be WAY under....BIG DIFFERENCE being under means NOTHING, you must be way under to be able to get players [strike]PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT IS WRITTEN B4 YOU BUTT IN![/strike]
> ...


Simmer down.

In your original post, you responded to a question about whether we'd be under the SALARY CAP by saying we were just under the LUXURY TAX for next year. Just let me know if you'd like me to explain the difference between these and how they function. (and mr caps lock is telling ME to pay attention. please.)

So, going in to next year, YES we are pretty far under the luxury tax, allowing us to ink Mihm, maybe Blount, and certainly the MLE. NO we are over the salary cap, so we will not be able to sign other team's free agents, outside of the MLE.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

We got 3 million to spend. Now let's see.

4/5 million for Mihm.
3/4/5 million for the rookies.
------------------------------------
So from 7- 10 million we'll add in salaries, and maybe the MLE, which is about 5 million.......

And the 3 million we had to spend is erased.


----------



## adamatic (Jan 7, 2004)

Fair enough.

As it stands it looks like after Mihm, MLE, and signing rookies, we should be butting right up against or maybe even a little past he luxury tax. I guess that'll all depend on how many of these picks we use, offseason deals, and the expansion draft.

Should be an interesting offseason.


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>adamatic</b>!
> 
> 
> So, going in to next year, YES we are pretty far under the luxury tax, allowing us to ink Mihm, maybe Blount, and certainly the MLE. NO we are over the salary cap, so we will not be able to sign other team's free agents, outside of the MLE.


We will NOT be resigning Blount, he has no interest in staying with the C's, we don't have the money to pay him, and we don't want him. He will go to another team and make a lot more and play backup and do well. We may not even sign Mihm, but I hope we do and I think he'll stay if we try to.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>whiterhino</b>!
> 
> 
> We will NOT be resigning Blount, he has no interest in staying with the C's, we don't have the money to pay him, and we don't want him. He will go to another team and make a lot more and play backup and do well. We may not even sign Mihm, but I hope we do and I think he'll stay if we try to.


I don't think we will need Mihm..

Next Year:

C: Lottery Pick (Rafael Arajo), Lafrentz, Perkins
PF: Lafrentz, Hunter, Perkins..

Then we will add another second round pick which will probably be a Al Jefferson, James Lloreda type player like Brandon Hunter.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>adamatic</b>!
> Fair enough.
> 
> As it stands it looks like after Mihm, MLE, and signing rookies, we should be butting right up against or maybe even a little past he luxury tax. I guess that'll all depend on how many of these picks we use, offseason deals, and the expansion draft.
> ...


There won't be any luxury tax....but you are right, Danny will probably make up for the deals he couldn't do this season.


----------

