# Expect an orgasmic column from Bill Simmons tomorrow



## chris_in_pdx (Jul 11, 2004)

Claiming that aquiring a has-been Garnett will do anything except make the Celtics more first round cannon fodder than they would have been with Pierce and Allen alone. That being said, the Timberwolves just got raped. I would have demanded AT LEAST Paul Pierce.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

Why would Minnesota want Paul Pierce?

If they can get Jefferson, Gerald Green, maybe a 1st round pick, that's pretty good for a guy who absolutely no help to the franchise in the first place. Win win for both teams.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

In 4 years the Celtics will be the worst team in the league, so they better make the best of the next few years in the Leastern Conference.


----------



## mobes23 (Jun 29, 2006)

At the risk of making a fool of myself and providing fodder for links back to this post next May, I'll go on record for saying that at age 31, Garnett will have a Barkley-with-the-Suns type resurgence that will make Ainge look like a genius and will have the current naysayers hiding like the squirrels that they are.


----------



## Entity (Feb 21, 2005)

That puts Zach down a rung in the Eastern all-star sweepstakes, if you think he'll produce like he did last year.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

When the Suns signed Nash, most of the posters on this board mocked them unmercifully. Nash was supposedly overpaid and over-the-hill, and the Suns were doomed to irrelevance. 

The Celtics won't regret this deal. Of the young players they gave up, only Jefferson has a chance to be more than average.


----------



## Mateo (Sep 23, 2006)

Actually, last time the Celtics were in the Garnett chase Simmons wrote a column about how huge of a mistake it would be and how Jefferson was already a great young player and so on. Which is hilarious because he had previously written 2 or 3 columns about how the Suns just HAD to trade Amare for Garnett. Then when his team was ready to trade Jefferson he clammed up.

Fans love their own draft picks.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

mobes23 said:


> At the risk of making a fool of myself and providing fodder for links back to this post next May, I'll go on record for saying that at age 31, Garnett will have a Barkley-with-the-Suns type resurgence that will make Ainge look like a genius and will have the current naysayers hiding like the squirrels that they are.


I agree.

Years of pent up frustration with crappy teams, and playing in the Eastern Conference, with fewer good bigs to deal with, and playing with guys who demand their own attention, will play out for a monster season for KG.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

mobes23 said:


> At the risk of making a fool of myself and providing fodder for links back to this post next May, I'll go on record for saying that at age 31, Garnett will have a Barkley-with-the-Suns type resurgence that will make Ainge look like a genius and will have the current naysayers hiding like the squirrels that they are.


A resurgence from his dismal stats of last year?

2006-07 Statistics

PPG
22.4
RPG
12.80 
APG
4.1
EFF
+ 29.17 
SPG
1.2
BPG
1.7

SPOOKY.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

NBA rule of thumb: Whoever gets the best player in a deal is the winner. Boston is clearly the winner in this trade. They now have a good chance of getting to the Finals for the next 3 or 4 years, and for that you have to salute Ainge. He has made lemonade out of lemons.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Tince said:


> In 4 years the Celtics will be the worst team in the league, so they better make the best of the next few years in the Leastern Conference.


I don't know. If they didn't trade away all their draft picks also, they have a decent shot at getting a similar type of player in the next few drafts.

Remember that the focal point of the deal was GG (an 18th pick) and Al Jefferson (a 15th pick). The only lottery pick they gave up this offseason was the #5, so with a little creativity, Ainge might be able to get some BPA type guys in the lower first round... you never know.


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

Tince said:


> In 4 years the Celtics will be the worst team in the league, so they better make the best of the next few years in the Leastern Conference.


basically. they have a 3-year window. after that, back to the depths. overall though, celts win out in this. better to get a bunch of talent than to hold on on to "potentials".

assuming you'll be amazing in a few years just by keeping youngsters together is a bad plan. this ain't HS.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

If Rondo or a few of their other players emerge (Tony Allen was having a great run before being injured) this could put Boston in contention for the eastern crown. Possibly even a championship.

However, this is going to have to be a strong run, because it's not going to last very long.


----------



## deanwoof (Mar 10, 2003)

this all depends if allen can have both ankles working next year and if paul pierce actually plays like an allstar instead of a chump. 

now the real question is.. where's the depth? what's boston have left?
perkins, scalabrine, tony allen, telfair or rondo, leon powe, baby davis and ... ainge?


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

I think Brevin Knight, Chris Webber and PJ Brown are probably all on the list.


----------



## Darkwebs (May 23, 2006)

The Celtics will be fun to watch this coming season. I think Ainge did the right thing, trading for Garnett. He already mortgaged Boston's future with the Ray Allen trade. Why not go all in? Getting KG is a more sound and logical choice than to keep Al Jefferson, Gerald Green, and Sebastian Telfair, which means neither contending for a title, nor completely rebuilding.

If Boston kept Jefferson, Green, and Telfair, they would be mediocre now and in the future when their young guys blossom (and it doesn't appear that any of those 3 will be superstars). But the Celtics will be a contender now and they'll suck badly enough in the future (when Garnett, Pierce, and Allen fades) that they will get some very good lottery picks, enabling them to build through the draft to hopefully contend again in the distant future.

It's probably a good idea for them to go all out with one strategy - experienced All-Stars in (or slightly) passed their prime who can possibly win a championship - than the straddling the middle and getting nothing meaningful accomplished.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Trying to figure out why Garnett would agree to go to the Celtics and not the Blazers. Is he just tired of his teams being abused in the rough-n-tumble West?

And why the Wolves would prefer what they got from the Celtics over what they potentially could have gotten from the Blazers (before Zach was traded)?

PBF


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/070730


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Darkwebs said:


> The Celtics will be fun to watch this coming season. I think Ainge did the right thing, trading for Garnett. He already mortgaged Boston's future with the Ray Allen trade. Why not go all in? Getting KG is a more sound and logical choice than to keep Al Jefferson, Gerald Green, and Sebastian Telfair, which means neither contending for a title, nor completely rebuilding.
> 
> If Boston kept Jefferson, Green, and Telfair, they would be mediocre now and in the future when their young guys blossom (and it doesn't appear that any of those 3 will be superstars). But the Celtics will be a contender now and they'll suck badly enough in the future (when Garnett, Pierce, and Allen fades) that they will get some very good lottery picks, enabling them to build through the draft to hopefully contend again in the distant future.
> 
> It's probably a good idea for them to go all out with one strategy - experienced All-Stars in (or slightly) passed their prime who can possibly win a championship - than the straddling the middle and getting nothing meaningful accomplished.


Good post.

In one summer Ainge went from being one of the worst GMs in the league, according to us know-it-all fans, to being a near genius. Sure he gutted his team. But he's now got 3 all stars. Three all stars and a bunch of nobodies, as long as they have a steady point guard and a passable center, can go a long way in this league. Do the Celtics have a steady point guard and a passable center? What was the final deal? I'd rather start my team with an all star point guard and an all star center, but hey, it's the east. It really worked out well for Ainge, IMO. I'll actually make it a point to watch this Celtics team.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

NathanLane said:


> http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/070730


Thanks, Nathan.



Simmons said:


> My NBA guide claims that McHale retired from the Celtics in 1993, but apparently that's a misprint. How else could you explain his decision to trade Kevin Garnett to Boston for the Al Jefferson pu pu platter deluxe? Just five weeks ago, McHale and Minnesota couldn't close a potential deal in which they received Jefferson and Boston's No. 5 pick. Now? They're settling for Jefferson (a potential franchise player), Ryan Gomes (an intangibles guy who's useless on a bad team), Bassy Telfair (a year away from signing in Italy), Gerald Green (a homeless man's J.R. Smith), Theo Ratliff's expiring deal, a 2009 lottery-protected No. 1 pick (congrats on picking in the mid-20s) and the return of Minny's future No. 1 that was stupidly included in the Ricky Davis/Mark Blount-Wally Szczerbiak trade.
> 
> Basically, McHale traded one of the best 25 players ever -- at the tail end of his prime!!! -- for Jefferson (a free agent in two years), one year of Gomes (a free agent in '08, when he'll be leaving treadmarks on his way out of Minnesota), a harmless pick and a do-over for a pick he never should have traded. Last month, McHale walked away from the No. 5 pick in the deal. This month, he couldn't even get Boston to throw in Rajon Rondo.
> 
> And honestly? I'm flabbergasted. I was vehemently against trading Jefferson and the No. 5 for KG, only because losing Jefferson wouldn't have been worth competing with two top-25 guys and a roster too young to do anything around them (as well as Doc Rivers coaching that very same team). Now? They have three All-Stars -- KG, Allen and Paul Pierce -- who rank in the top-six at their respective positions. Assuming KG and Allen have 2-3 quality seasons in them, that gives the Celts pole position in the atrocious Eastern Conference for 2008 and 2009, especially if they luck out with one more free-agent signing and an in-season veteran pickup.


That explains it. McHale is still a Celtic.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ProudBFan said:


> Trying to figure out why Garnett would agree to go to the Celtics and not the Blazers. Is he just tired of his teams being abused in the rough-n-tumble West?
> 
> And why the Wolves would prefer what they got from the Celtics over what they potentially could have gotten from the Blazers (before Zach was traded)?
> 
> PBF



what could they have potentially gotten from the Blazers that was actually offered and not some fans wet dream?


----------



## BengalDuck (Jun 19, 2004)

Hap said:


> what could they have potentially gotten from the Blazers that was actually offered and not some fans wet dream?


To be fair, a package of Al Jefferson and junk (Bassy? Gerald Green? Minny's own 1st back?) is a pipe dream too.

Or, excuse me, was a pipe dream.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

ProudBFan said:


> Trying to figure out why Garnett would agree to go to the Celtics and not the Blazers. Is he just tired of his teams being abused in the rough-n-tumble West?
> 
> And why the Wolves would prefer what they got from the Celtics over what they potentially could have gotten from the Blazers (before Zach was traded)?


Portland is in Minni's Division, the Celts are in the other conference. It's going to be rough enough times for McHale post KG and each time he returns it could be like salt in the wound. All other trade factors being relatively equal, McHale probably doesn't want to have KG as a division rival kicking his Wolves butt 4-5 times a year and inciting the local press to call for his head. 

STOMP


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

If Al Jefferson, Gerald Green and Sebastian Telfair were the Celtics future, they're probably pretty happy to be living in the now.

All of this "the Celtics will be terrible in 4 years" also assumes that they will make no good moves in that time frame.

It's definitely possible that they could reload without going back to the low lottery by dealing their three stars away one at a time as large expiring deals for good players, prospects or picks.

It's also possible that they could find solid players with the MLE or in the late first round. It seems like every year there are a few college seniors who are very good that fall far in the draft.

I think it's an amazing move - they went from having a huge long shot at future contention to having surefire title contention immediately. 

So now their fans can have fun and stop obsessing about a future that probably would have never materialized.


----------



## Dragnsmke1 (Jul 29, 2002)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> If Al Jefferson, Gerald Green and Sebastian Telfair were the Celtics future, they're probably pretty happy to be living in the now.
> 
> All of this "the Celtics will be terrible in 4 years" also assumes that they will make no good moves in that time frame.
> 
> ...


I agree...the whole point is win *now*, you don't know what the future brings...


----------



## chris_in_pdx (Jul 11, 2004)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> So now their fans can have fun and stop obsessing about a future that probably would have never materialized.


The issue is that the average Boston sports fan is a selfish, boorish, paranoid blowhard who thinks the entire sporting world revolves around them. No matter that the Patriots, Celtics, Red Sox, and Bruins have had enough success in their history to fill any sports city with glory for the next 300 years, but it's never enough for them. Celtics' fans martyrdom and incessant b*tching over the last decade, especially after a three-decade run of alternating dominance and competitiveness, was especially tiring. Simmons himself likened it to a child who grew up rich, but was cut off from all of the money on his 18th birthday, and had to get a job to pay the bills just like everyone else, and what an emotional and psycological blow that would be. To that I say, BOO FREAKIN' HOO. I hope that the Garnett/Allen/Pierce chemistry experiment blows up in their face ala the 2004 Lakers, and they return to their crushing cycle of mediocrity.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

chris_in_pdx said:


> The issue is that the average Boston sports fan is a selfish, boorish, paranoid blowhard who thinks the entire sporting world revolves around them. No matter that the Patriots, Celtics, Red Sox, and Bruins have had enough success in their history to fill any sports city with glory for the next 300 years, but it's never enough for them. Celtics' fans martyrdom and incessant b*tching over the last decade, especially after a three-decade run of alternating dominance and competitiveness, was especially tiring. Simmons himself likened it to a child who grew up rich, but was cut off from all of the money on his 18th birthday, and had to get a job to pay the bills just like everyone else, and what an emotional and psycological blow that would be. To that I say, BOO FREAKIN' HOO. I hope that the Garnett/Allen/Pierce chemistry experiment blows up in their face ala the 2004 Lakers, and they return to their crushing cycle of mediocrity.


Boo hoo yourself...

What's the point of going on an annoying, whiney rant about annoying whiney people?

I'd rather talk about whether or not the team is going to be good than whether or not their fans are swell people.

It was a good move.

Just face it and move on...


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

chris_in_pdx said:


> The issue is that the average Boston sports fan is a selfish, boorish, paranoid blowhard who thinks the entire sporting world revolves around them. No matter that the Patriots, Celtics, Red Sox, and Bruins have had enough success in their history to fill any sports city with glory for the next 300 years, but it's never enough for them. Celtics' fans martyrdom and incessant b*tching over the last decade, especially after a three-decade run of alternating dominance and competitiveness, was especially tiring. Simmons himself likened it to a child who grew up rich, but was cut off from all of the money on his 18th birthday, and had to get a job to pay the bills just like everyone else, and what an emotional and psycological blow that would be. To that I say, BOO FREAKIN' HOO. I hope that the Garnett/Allen/Pierce chemistry experiment blows up in their face ala the 2004 Lakers, and they return to their crushing cycle of mediocrity.


I hope the Celtics win the next 2 titles, or go to the finals 2 out of the next 3 years and win 2 of them...putting them that much farther ahead of the Lakers (organization).

Then it'll be our turn to dominate and history will forget that the Celtics won those titles.


----------



## chris_in_pdx (Jul 11, 2004)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> What's the point of going on an annoying, whiney rant about annoying whiney people?
> 
> I'd rather talk about whether or not the team is going to be good than whether or not their fans are swell people.


One of the main reasons I hate the Lakers is because their fans are stereotypically pompous, egotistical, loud front-running morons who feel some type of superiority over other NBA fans simply because they root for the Lakers. Unlike Celtic fans, they simply ignore the Lakers or root for another team when the Laker's fortunes turn for the worse, as is happening right now, but if/when the Lakers rejoin the NBA elite, those idiots will claim that they've been with the team all along.

I have nothing against the Celtic organization itself. I just wish that Boston Sports Fan would shut the hell up.


----------



## abwowang (Mar 7, 2006)

and dale davis and tyronn lue.. maybe gary payton?


----------



## blakeback (Jun 29, 2006)

ProudBFan said:


> Trying to figure out why Garnett would agree to go to the Celtics and not the Blazers. Is he just tired of his teams being abused in the rough-n-tumble West?


really? you can't figure out why? try to put yourself in Garnett's shoes. He wants a championship, and he's getting older. 


choice A: go to a rebuilding team in the strong West with no proven stars (after waiving an all-star) and a 2-3 year plan just to MAKE the playoffs,

or 

choice B: go to a team in the weak East that has two other all-stars who also are getting older and also really want campionships. a team that wants the finals NOW, bad enough to trade its future for it.



talk about a no-brainer.

even the worst-case scenario for Boston looks better for KG than Portland- suppose Ray & Paul each get injured and only play 50 games next season... you still have Garnett going aganst the Eastern Conference. he could play 4-on-5 against the East and make the second round of the playoffs.


----------



## G-Force (Jan 4, 2005)

ProudBFan said:


> Trying to figure out why Garnett would agree to go to the Celtics and not the Blazers. Is he just tired of his teams being abused in the rough-n-tumble West?
> 
> PBF


I read that both Pierce and Ray lobbied KG very heavily. They probably told him that together they had a shot at doing what none of them has done so far - go deep into the playoffs and have a shot at winning a championship.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

This move was a no-brainer for Garnett; a no-brainer for Boston; and a chance for Minny to rebuild. The only time I've ever rooted for Boston was when they played the Lakers or the Knicks. But I'm looking forward to watching them do well this season. Ray Allen is one of the few class guys in the league and I'm glad he got himself into a good situation. Three all stars of the caliber of Garnett, Allen and Pierce on one team? I don't care who they cobble together around those three, that's a contender.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Remember that glum look on Danny Ainge's face when Portland won the NBA lottery? Well, this is the result. Ainge realized that his dreams of building through the draft were ruined, so he went the other way and got age and experience with Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett.

In other words, Portland's good luck in the lottery led directly to this trade.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> Remember that glum look on Danny Ainge's face when Portland won the NBA lottery? Well, this is the result. Ainge realized that his dreams of building through the draft were ruined, so he went the other way and got age and experience with Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett.
> 
> In other words, Portland's good luck in the lottery led directly to this trade.


Picking up Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen is a pretty good back-up plan.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

Had this happened a little bit earlier, they could have had their pick of players for the midlevel exception and had a pretty solid 4 out of 5 players lineup.

They need a center and a point guard. I wonder who is left...


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Anonymous Gambler said:


> Had this happened a little bit earlier, they could have had their pick of players for the midlevel exception and had a pretty solid 4 out of 5 players lineup.
> 
> They need a center and a point guard. I wonder who is left...


Webber, PJ Brown, and Varejao (restricted) are still available. With his passing, Webber might be a good fit....if he takes the job with the right attitude!

As for PG, Rondo can distribute and play defense. If he can knock down a few open shots, he will be fine.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> Picking up Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen is a pretty good back-up plan.


True, but it doesn't do much for long-term success.

This is somewhat reminiscent of the Pippen/Barkley/Olajuwon debacle in Houston, except in the Celtics' case none of the Big Three has won a title or even played in a Finals.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Webber, PJ Brown, and Varejao (restricted) are still available. With his passing, Webber might be a good fit....if he takes the job with the right attitude!
> 
> As for PG, Rondo can distribute and play defense. If he can knock down a few open shots, he will be fine.


Webber would be solid as a Bill Walton-type sixth or seventh man. Rondo is good as well; why McHale didn't demand him instead of Telfail I have no idea.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

papag said:


> This is somewhat reminiscent of the Pippen/Barkley/Olajuwon debacle in Houston, except in the Celtics' case none of the Big Three has won a title or even played in a Finals.


First of all, it wasn't a "debacle". They finished 31-19 in the short year, which works out to a 51 win season over 82 games. They lost in the first round, but losing to Shaq isn't really a big embarrassment.

Secondly, the age range is markedly different. For 1998-99:

Hakeem: 36
Barkley: 35
Pippen: 33

And right now:

Allen: 32
KG: 31
Pierce: 29

The Celtics are four years younger across the board... I think that Hakeem/Barklet/Pippen at the same ages would have been markedly better than they were, don't you?

Of course, Allen and Pierce are "merely" borderline HoFers, unlike the Rockets' three and KG, but the age difference is significant between the two groups.

Ed O.


----------



## blakeback (Jun 29, 2006)

.

.

.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Greg Oden looks young there.

<img src="http://cache.gettyimages.com/xc/1670877.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=6785396786853B38CF814C4644C58675" />


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

Ed O said:


> First of all, it wasn't a "debacle". They finished 31-19 in the short year, which works out to a 51 win season over 82 games. They lost in the first round, but losing to Shaq isn't really a big embarrassment.
> 
> Secondly, the age range is markedly different. For 1998-99:
> 
> ...


I said "somewhat reminiscent". Offering an alternate view, if you will. Plus, the Rockets missed the playoffs for four seasons after this, so yes, it was a debacle.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

papag said:


> I said "somewhat reminiscent". Offering an alternate view, if you will. Plus, the Rockets missed the playoffs for four seasons after this, so yes, it was a debacle.


How was it a debacle? Do you think that they would have made the playoffs any of those years if they hadn't acquired Pippen (for nothing)?

Ed O.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

Ed O said:


> How was it a debacle? *Do you think that they would have made the playoffs any of those years if they hadn't acquired Pippen* (for nothing)?
> 
> Ed O.


I don't know Ed. My hindsight isn't clear. What I do know is they didn't make the playoffs for four seasons after this experiment.

The Blazers did make the playoffs with Pippen, however, for whatever that is worth, and gave up garbage to get him. Let me know if there are any other hypotheticals we need to cover on this topic. :biggrin:


----------



## ASDQWE (May 31, 2007)

Hakeem at 31 was winning MVP's and championships.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

papag said:


> True, but it doesn't do much for long-term success.


What long term success?

What long term success were they going to have with Pierce, Jefferson and a host of mediocre prospects?

What long term success were they going to have with Pierce, Allen, Jefferson and a bunch of mediocre prospects?

This move is good for success - period.

In order to have long term success, you need success in the first place. They haven't had it in 20 years - now they have a shot. That's worth a lot when your team has been bad for so long.

The Celtics are relevant again. Now their challenge is to find a way to become dominant and then after that a way to maximize their window.

Not everybody gets to draft Greg Oden. Frankly, I'm impressed with what Ainge has been able to accomplish after losing the lottery. If the Celtics do well this year (and they should), he should be the frontrunner for executive of the year.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> Not everybody gets to draft Greg Oden. Frankly, I'm impressed with what Ainge has been able to accomplish after losing the lottery. If the Celtics do well this year (and they should), he should be the frontrunner for executive of the year.


Are you kidding me? Had the GM of the Wolves been anyone other than McHale or any other stooge this trade never would've happened. They would've gotten more value for KG, probably sooner than now or more likely they would've built a different team around KG earlier.

Ainge got Allen for the 5th pick. He mortgaged the future for a 3 year window with Allen. This was covered to death in another thread but look at the historical stats for shooters his age. He's going to be on a big decline after a couple of years. It was a good move for the window of oppt., but certainly not an exec of the year award. His only other move was KG and apparently those photos he had of McHale were just too good.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Ainge made two moves in one month that changed his team from one of the worst in the league to possibly a contender for the conference championship. His team went from having no window and no hope to possibly being a powerhouse in the east. If he fleeced someone (I don't think he did) that makes him a better GM, not a worse one. I'm not sizing them for rings or anything, but I also think that putting a nail in the Celtics' coffin with a 3 year deadline, as some posters are, is vastly premature. That team will probably be better in 3-5 years than this season, IMO, as they add back some decent backups.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

yakbladder said:


> Ainge got Allen for the 5th pick. He mortgaged the future for a 3 year window with Allen. This was covered to death in another thread but look at the historical stats for shooters his age. He's going to be on a big decline after a couple of years. It was a good move for the window of oppt., but certainly not an exec of the year award. His only other move was KG and apparently those photos he had of McHale were just too good.


I think the Allen trade looks a lot better in light of the fact that it netted them KG. And if it costs a #5 pick to get one of the most versitile players of all time, and a player who still has some fuel left in the tank, you go out and get him.

The Boston sports market is fickle, especially with Bill Belicheck and the Sox (armed with a Steinbrenner-like payroll). Becoming relevant again is the keyword here, and for that, you have to give Ainge some credit. 

(Even if it does seem like he drove his car off a bridge into a ravine that just happened to be filled with gold).

I think the big question is, how is he going to use all of those extra roster spots? One would think that if they're willing to grab KG, one of the last max players under that old CBA, they'd be willing to pay the luxury tax to grab some role players to fill out the roster.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

Boston looks fantastic- they are just a few players away from being the top team in the west.

If they could get even a Pryzbilla and a Jarret Jack, then I'd say they would be the favorites.

Great job by their GM. Garnett will be unstoppable on the post having both Ray Allen and Pierce to kick the ball out to.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

yakbladder said:


> Are you kidding me? Had the GM of the Wolves been anyone other than McHale or any other stooge this trade never would've happened. They would've gotten more value for KG, probably sooner than now or more likely they would've built a different team around KG earlier.


Who cares? Ainge was the one who had the ability and guts to get the deal done. If it was so easy to screw over McHale then why didn't some better GM beat Ainge to the punch? Others certainly tried... Chicago, Golden State, Phoenix.

Results matter.



> Ainge got Allen for the 5th pick. He *mortgaged the future *for a 3 year window with Allen. This was covered to death in another thread but look at the historical stats for shooters his age. He's going to be on a big decline after a couple of years. *It was a good move *for the window of oppt., but certainly not an exec of the year award. *His only other move *was KG and apparently those photos he had of McHale were just too good.


Again, what future? 

Al Jefferson, Jeff Green, and Gerald Green wouldn't hold a candle to Pierce/Garnett/Allen no matter how many years you give them to develop.

You're right though, Ainge only made two good moves. Two good moves that netted him two superstars to add up to three hungry superstars in their prime.

Take into account that his team had the second worst record in the league, was in danger of losing (or seriously disgruntling) their only superstar, and lost out on the Durant/Oden sweepstakes, he has my early vote for Exec of the year.

Who has made moves that you think will have a larger effect on the W/L column?


----------

