# Big vs. Dwight Howard



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

63. Al Jefferson



> Did you know that the best young low-post player in basketball right now is only 11 months older than Dwight Howard? It's true. Howard is a more powerful player than Jefferson, and he's definitely a better rebounder, but as we witnessed on Sunday night -- when Jefferson soundly outplayed him, by the way -- Big Al is a much more polished offensive player and needs to be double-teamed at all times. Howard's points come on fast breaks, finishes and putback dunks and that's it. I don't know who's better, but it's definitely up for debate. Check out their post-All Star break numbers:
> 
> • Jefferson: 19.9 points, 11.4 rebounds, 1.7 blocks, 56 percent shooting.
> • Howard: 17.8 points, 12.9 rebounds, 2.1 blocks, 62 percent shooting.
> ...


Thanks Danny.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

More Simmons:

Least Valuable Player



> *
> But before I reveal my 2007 pick on Wednesday morning, here's a look at some of the players who didn't make the cut (and where they finished in the top 450).
> 
> In reverse order ...
> ...



Thanks again Danny. You got beat up for trading the "starting PG" Banks. He's been a stud in PHO.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Wow. That was a horrible article. Usually I agree with Simmons, but his rankings are flat-out bad.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Causeway said:


> Thanks Danny.


Howard is seven times better at defense.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

> 43. Sebastian Telfair
> No way the Celtics land the second lottery spot without him.



coulda had brandon roy...Thanks Danny. :biggrin:


----------



## BostonBasketball (Jan 10, 2005)

> > 43. Sebastian Telfair
> > No way the Celtics land the second lottery spot without him.
> 
> 
> ...


Now the question is though would you rather have had brandon roy or telfair and oden/durant?


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

BostonBasketball said:


> Now the question is though would you rather have had brandon roy or telfair and oden/durant?




brandon roy would not have made so much of a difference that out chances at a top 2 pick would be astronomically different...we might have won a couple more games but trust me with ownership obviously tanking having roy wouldnt have made a difference


----------



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

BostonBasketball said:


> Now the question is though would you rather have had brandon roy or telfair and oden/durant?


Who would you rather have, Brandon Roy & Yi Jianlian or Sea Bass & Yi Jianlian?


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Who would you rather have - Al Jefferson or Raef?


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Who got us Raef?


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Danny. But with Raef we also got a 2004 first-round draft pick, [Delonte West] and Chris Mills that we traded and I forget who he became.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Even Ainge admits that trade was a mistake. You cannot possible defend it.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

I just did. 

It was not a perfect trade at all, but also not bad when you look at the whole of it. If you only focus on Raef it was flawed - but it was more than Raef, and we are better for it.


----------



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

Premier said:


> Even Ainge admits that trade was a mistake. You cannot possible defend it.


When Dr. StrAingelove deals Paul Pierce for Raef Lafrentz, Travis Outlaw, and a lottery protected first round pick he'll defend it. So of course he can defend the other trade. About the only good thing that came out of that deal was that we got rid of Walker. But sadly as it cost us the 2007 rookie of the year the trade still sucked.

EDIT: Giving this some further thought, you have to admit it's pretty funny. We traded away someone better than anyone we got back in the Walker deal just to rid ourselves Raef Lafrentz. Thanks Danny!


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

...


----------



## pokpok (Jul 26, 2005)

112. Ricky Davis
Strange career: He's only 27 and his stats are pretty good, but he's played nine seasons and made the playoffs once. If Ricky remains in the league until he's 35 -- *and it's questionable whether he'll be alive at 35, much less playing in the NBA* -- he'll be starting the 2014-15 season as a 17-year veteran. Ricky Davis. Now that's bizarre. By the way, if we're keeping count this decade, Ricky leads the league in "crazy partying stories that have been passed around by everyone who follows the league but can't be confirmed by a firsthand witness who was actually there." He started taking on Bill Brasky proportions about three years ago.

My buddy's a trainer for the Grizzlies. ... He went out with Ricky Davis and some friends in Memphis a few years ago before a game, Ricky Davis dragged everyone over to Graceland, drank 19 bottles of Patrone and eventually tried to set the Elvis memorial on fire! And he played the next night and nearly put up a triple-double!


HAHAHAHAHHAHA


----------



## pokpok (Jul 26, 2005)

30. Baron Davis
Missed 20 games and played like an All-Star in the other 62. In other words, it was a typical Baron Davis season. If I'm the Warriors, I'm selling high on Baron this summer, saving some cash and turning the team over to Monta Ellis.

*(In fact, allow me to make this offer for Davis on behalf of the Celtics: Delonte West, Gerald Green, Theo Ratliff's expiring contract, Sebastian Telfair's expiring contract and all future DVD residuals for "Through The Fire 2: Greece or Italy?")*


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Yet another winner Ainge gets beat up for trading.


----------



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

pokpok said:


> 30. Baron Davis
> Missed 20 games and played like an All-Star in the other 62. In other words, it was a typical Baron Davis season. If I'm the Warriors, I'm selling high on Baron this summer, saving some cash and turning the team over to Monta Ellis.
> 
> *(In fact, allow me to make this offer for Davis on behalf of the Celtics: Delonte West, Gerald Green, Theo Ratliff's expiring contract, Sebastian Telfair's expiring contract and all future DVD residuals for "Through The Fire 2: Greece or Italy?")*


Unless Baron has working insurance, I'm not sure the owners are going to want him. Danny's all for trading for cripples, but only so far as they have insured deals.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

Causeway said:


> Yet another winner Ainge gets beat up for trading.




ainge doesnt get "beat up" for trading ricky...he gets beat up for what he traded him for...wally szczerbiak??? are you kidding me??? i would rather have gotten trenton hassel...maybe wallys more talented but having wallyworld for 30 games a year does nothing for a team


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> ainge doesnt get "beat up" for trading ricky...he gets beat up for what he traded him for...wally szczerbiak??? are you kidding me??? i would rather have gotten trenton hassel...maybe wallys more talented but having wallyworld for 30 games a year does nothing for a team


That is not entirely true - and you know this. I do not have the time to look for posts on how great Ricky is, and how great he was for the Celtics, and that he was a model citizen while in Boston, etc. People were all over losing Ricky, even before Wally went down with injuries.

People were almost equally lamenting the loss of Banks, that has quieted down as well.


----------



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

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> ainge doesnt get "beat up" for trading ricky...he gets beat up for what he traded him for...wally szczerbiak??? are you kidding me??? i would rather have gotten trenton hassel...maybe wallys more talented but having wallyworld for 30 games a year does nothing for a team


Why would Danny have traded for Hassell? That would have made the Celtics _better_. As our resident experts will tell you Danny's masterplan was to put together a team so bad that he'd be in the running for Oden/Durant. Surely you don't think that Danny constructed a 24 win team accidentally? :bsmile:


----------



## DaBosox (Apr 10, 2007)

ehmunro said:


> Why would Danny have traded for Hassell? That would have made the Celtics _better_. As our resident experts will tell you Danny's masterplan was to put together a team so bad that he'd be in the running for Oden/Durant. Surely you don't think that Danny constructed a 24 win team accidentally? :bsmile:


I could have swore I thought Danny had no plan at all. To say that Danny was prescient enough to plan to fail means that Danny had a plan. I disagree with that.

I thought you were with me munro. I don't even know you anymore


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Here's your plan, again:

"Fix a team who in 2003 had two good players, no cap room, no quality young players under 25 years-old, no chips to trade other than future first-rounders."

The mess for the most part has been cleaned up. Now the fun starts.


----------



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

DaBosox said:


> I could have swore I thought Danny had no plan at all. To say that Danny was prescient enough to plan to fail means that Danny had a plan. I disagree with that.
> 
> I thought you were with me munro. I don't even know you anymore


Have you heard Danny's Rainman interview yet? I nearly fell out of the car laughing this morning when I heard it. If his performance is anything to go by then the Celtics front office has to be looking like the last days of Nixon about now. I'll try to find the audio for you.

EDIT: Found it. Download it, the fun picks up at the 1:25 mark when he starts in with the "We gotta get better on the defensive end" schtick. Though the entire interview is a holy riot.


----------



## DaBosox (Apr 10, 2007)

"I think Doc's had a tough time with the personnel"

Wow. I'm taking that as an open admission of guilt for putting together a crummy roster.

That little "better defensive team, definitely, better defensive team, definitely defensive" ramble was priceless too.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Causeway said:


> The mess for the most part has been cleaned up. Now the fun starts.


What happens when the Celtics do not get a top two selection, which is the most likely scenario [61%]? Another year of mediocrity or do we tank again? Ainge's tenure is resting on a 39% chance.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

I know the "39% chance" statement gets repeated anytime there's an opportunity. But I disagree that the C's future rests on getting one of the top two picks. Would Oden or Durant in Green be fantastic? Yes. If we don't get one of those guys are we screwed? No. One of two things happens - at least as far as the draft. One - we still get an excellent player in the draft. This draft is deeper than 1/2. Or, we trade the pick - either with a package of one of more young players, or on it's own. Either way, it's good for Boston.


----------



## DaBosox (Apr 10, 2007)

I think Premier makes a great point here, and pay attention to this Causeway. Ainge's tenure is not reflected in the fact that a month from Sunday we could be riding high on Oden. It's the circumstances that brought us to this miserable point, all of which begin and end with Danny's decision making. Acquiring a team of has-been, hobbled, slow, notoriously bad defensive players put us in the point to be players in this draft. The pick itself is inconsequential to what brought us to this point, and that's the reason the DA needs to go.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Actually injuries to Tony Allen and more importantly, Paul Pierce, is what really killed this season. Not sure how Ainge could have controlled that. 

I was paying attention, but thanks for the reminder.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

It's fun how intertwined Portland and Boston have become over the last couple of years.

Portland asst GM Mark Warkentine quit his possition with the club for selecting Telfair over Al Jefferson

Portland trades Telfair to Boston for Brandon Roy

Danny Ainge born and raised in Oregon

If my history memory is correct we flipped a coin with your city to see which city would be named what

Portland was deciding on virtualy two players in the draft Martell Webster and Gerald Green. Portland took Webster and Boston took Green. The reason those two were the front runners is because we didn't "need" Chris Paul or Deron Williams because we had Telfair.....who is now in Boston


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

Causeway said:


> I know the "39% chance" statement gets repeated anytime there's an opportunity. But I disagree that the C's future rests on getting one of the top two picks. Would Oden or Durant in Green be fantastic? Yes. If we don't get one of those guys are we screwed? No. One of two things happens - at least as far as the draft. One - we still get an excellent player in the draft. This draft is deeper than 1/2. Or, we trade the pick - either with a package of one of more young players, or on it's own. Either way, it's good for Boston.


To quote a pretty cool guy:



> (Hold on, I hate even bringing this up, it makes me feel sick...)
> 
> (Deep breath ... )
> 
> ...


That pretty much summerizes it. Add Pierce to this team and we're playing for the 8th seed, _nothing_ to be excited about.

Link


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Why are we rewarding Ainge for messing up the past four years, as if he planned to do so in order to draft Oden?


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

That was not part of the plan, but if it happens it'll be a huge bonus.


----------



## DaBosox (Apr 10, 2007)

Causeway said:


> Actually injuries to Tony Allen and more importantly, Paul Pierce, is what really killed this season. Not sure how Ainge could have controlled that.
> 
> I was paying attention, but thanks for the reminder.


I'm glad for that.

How about the cap room we wasted on Wally, Theo, and Ralph over the past year? Can we have controlled that somehow? Perhaps by not acquiring said rotten deals?

All I'm saying is that there is a history of shaky deals for some serious stiffs. I actually get irate thinking of Dickau earning 3 million per season for the next year and Veal Scalabrine earning 3 for 3 more. 

I'm interested in knowing the following so we can put this GM debate to bed: 1: what are the criteria for defining a successful GM's tenure, 2: Has Danny completed these tasks, and 3: Can anyone possibly do a better job. 

I feel that without some criteria for success we can endlessly babble on about this. Let's let some facts get in the way of our opinions.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

DaBosox said:


> I'm glad for that.
> 
> How about the cap room we wasted on Wally, Theo, and Ralph over the past year? Can we have controlled that somehow? Perhaps by not acquiring said rotten deals?


For Wally - among other things we dumped Blount; got rid of Davis who word was had issues with Pierce; and got Rid of Banks who not only has shown to be highly over rated, but would have been in the way of one of our current brightest players in Rondo: advantage, Boston.

For Theo (which we have gone over already but you want to again so...) - we dumped Raef which will allow us to keep a young guy, probably Big Al, and we'll have Theo's expitring.

Ralph? Who is that?



> All I'm saying is that there is a history of shaky deals for some serious stiffs. I actually get irate thinking of Dickau earning 3 million per season for the next year and Veal Scalabrine earning 3 for 3 more.


Dickau is a bum. 

Scabs? To quote Aqua's favorite cool guy: "208. Brian Scalabrine
Not a joke. He played 19 minutes a game before getting hurt last month, shot 40 percent from 3-point territory and played surprisingly good defense, and that's before getting into all the intangibles (great character guy, everyone loves him, etc.). The Celtics were 19-35 when he played and 4-22 without him. Sure, anytime Brian Scalabrine emerges as one of the bright spots of the season, you can probably reserve hotel rooms in Secaucus without even looking at the standings. But given how much abuse I gave Scalabrine last year, he needed to be mentioned."



> I'm interested in knowing the following so we can put this GM debate to bed: 1: what are the criteria for defining a successful GM's tenure, 2: Has Danny completed these tasks, and 3: Can anyone possibly do a better job.


1. I would say a GM's job is to work towards putting the best team and coach on the floor, working with the team he inherited, and what the owners will allow him to do.

2. It is clearly not a finished product, but so far given the constraints, I'd say yes, he has done his job.

3. maybe. not really relevant though.




> I feel that without some criteria for success we can endlessly babble on about this.


Fine. Agreed. Let's here your criteria.




> Let's let some facts get in the way of our opinions.


A favorite message board line of many. Please explain how it applies here. In every response I've had to you on Ainge there have been facts - facts on his draft picks, facts on trades, facts on this seasons injuries, facts on the upcoming draft.



DaBosox said:


> West C-: Please go away. I don't see how he can be a part of a championship team.


Again, you have to be joking.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

Causeway said:


> For Wally - among other things we dumped Blount; got rid of Davis who word was had issues with Pierce; and got Rid of Banks who not only has shown to be highly over rated, but would have been in the way of one of our current brightest players in Rondo: advantage, Boston.


It's not every day you can get rid of players like Davis, Blount and Banks and get stuck with a player who sits on the bench not playing. I'm glad Danny did that trade.

And yes, it's a nice thing we traded Banks and got something for him because it would have interfeered with Rondo's development a year after Banks' contract expired.




Causeway said:


> For Theo (which we have gone over already but you want to again so...) - we dumped Raef which will allow us to keep a young guy, probably Big Al, and we'll have Theo's expitring.


Why did we have to get rid of Raef in the first place? Maybe because we made the mistake of actually getting him to this team as well as Wally?




Causeway said:


> Dickau is a bum.
> 
> Scabs? To quote Aqua's favorite cool guy: "208. Brian Scalabrine
> Not a joke. He played 19 minutes a game before getting hurt last month, shot 40 percent from 3-point territory and played surprisingly good defense, and that's before getting into all the intangibles (great character guy, everyone loves him, etc.). *The Celtics were 19-35 when he played and 4-22 without him.* Sure, anytime Brian Scalabrine emerges as one of the bright spots of the season, you can probably reserve hotel rooms in Secaucus without even looking at the standings. But given how much abuse I gave Scalabrine last year, he needed to be mentioned."


Please tell me you're not defending the Scalabrine signing because of our *19-35* record with him on the floor.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

aquaitious said:


> It's not every day you can get rid of players like Davis, Blount and Banks and get stuck with a player who sits on the bench not playing. I'm glad Danny did that trade.
> 
> And yes, it's a nice thing we traded Banks and got something for him because it would have interfeered with Rondo's development a year after Banks' contract expired.


If it were up to posters in here, he would have been re-signed long term. I guess we'll never know what the Celtics would have done if he was not traded. Rondo is a huge improvement either way.



> Why did we have to get rid of Raef in the first place? Maybe because we made the mistake of actually getting him to this team as well as Wally?


Maybe. Still a good move to move him.






aquaitious said:


> Please tell me you're not defending the Scalabrine signing because of our *19-35* record with him on the floor.


I did not say that. I quoted your man Simmons in saying we had a better record this season with him, than without him. It's a fact, and BoSox was asking for facts.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

Causeway said:


> That was not part of the plan, but if it happens it'll be a huge bonus.




cause...thats 90% of the problem...THERE WAS NO PLAN...if he wanted to rebulid he should have traded pierce and walker the second he got here and started it...not waited 5 years to start the rebuilding...and in the meantime trade and sign players like walker and payton to make a playoff run...if you want to make a playoff run you do it from the beginning...if you want to rebuild you do it from the beginning...you dont pull moves out of your behind and hope it all works out...his indecision is why we are sitting here 5 years later with a 23 win team


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

He had to rebuild, please the owners - and please ticket buyers as well. Get rid of Pierce and Walker off the bat, and even with dancing girls, no one is going to games. He has business duties as well.

We had some pretty major injuries this season by the way.


----------



## DaBosox (Apr 10, 2007)

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> cause...thats 90% of the problem...THERE WAS NO PLAN...if he wanted to rebulid he should have traded pierce and walker the second he got here and started it...not waited 5 years to start the rebuilding...and in the meantime trade and sign players like walker and payton to make a playoff run...if you want to make a playoff run you do it from the beginning...if you want to rebuild you do it from the beginning...you dont pull moves out of your behind and hope it all works out...his indecision is why we are sitting here 5 years later with a 23 win team


It amazes me how right you are. We should have gone either rebuild or playoffs, not some mediocre planless fill the seats route.

On the other side, Causeway does bring up a point. This is a business, and we'd be fools for a second to think that Wyc et al. know that their revenues go significantly down if we trade Pierce. There's a reason the marketing guy is in charge: they've done market research on the impact of trading Pierce. A marketing director would be a fool not to know this, and since we've packed the garden with an awful product this year that speaks volumes of how good this guy is. 

From a basketball standpoint, we trade Pierce and Walker the second Ainge comes in. From a business standpoint, we keep the player that is an up and coming star, stick the most mediocre possible product on the floor and pimp up every sideways/negative trade like Bassy, Wally, LaFrentz, Davis, ..... Business wise they know they're in entertainment business and they need names to keep interest. Basketballwise Danny knows how to use draft picks and saving as many bucks as possible. 

What does my rant mean? We're going to get consistently mediocre players and not much more. Munro has been spot on for a while that Wyc isn't opening up his wallet, so even though we could (theoretically) pick up KG for spare parts and expiring salary, there's no way we add on another max player. No matter what that means for the product on the court.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

DaBosox said:


> It amazes me how right you are.



get used to it :biggrin:




Causeway said:


> He had to rebuild, please the owners - and please ticket buyers as well. Get rid of Pierce and Walker off the bat, and even with dancing girls, no one is going to games. He has business duties as well.
> 
> We had some pretty major injuries this season by the way.



understood...and with regards to the injuries, without them we are a 33 win team instead...still doesnt say much for danny 5 years later


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Causeway, half-*** rebuilding never works. Look at the Warriors of five years ago. I hate to apply vague expressions to the NBA, but you have to identify a goal and a plan and then you have to completely commit yourself to it.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Danny came in and got rid of every player - except for one. That's not really half-assed. He traded mainly for picks, because excpet for Walker, picks were about all he could get. My main complaint is not trading some of the youth high, for vet talent. I think this offseason will be interesting though.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

Causeway said:


> *Danny came in and got rid of every player - except for one.* That's not really half-assed. He traded mainly for picks, because excpet for Walker, picks were about all he could get. My main complaint is not trading some of the youth high, for vet talent. I think this offseason will be interesting though.


He traded everyone he could, some even twice, except for Pierce, a guy who'll win you 30 games per season no matter what team he has around him (unfortunately he never got any help).

Sorry, but winnnig 30 games per year is half assed rebuilding. You don't win jack **** either way, not the pick or the 'ship.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Edit: I missed your point before. 

I said earlier that Ainge also has business reposiblities. Part of that is helping sell tix. That meant keeping Pierce.


----------

