# How do you like Ainge now??



## Causeway

There' a lot I'd like to say here - but I will take the high road and keep it simple. I have stated all along that Ainge's plan was to make moves that brought in young guys though trades and picks - and to either keep the toung guys or trade for quality vets. I took a lot of heat for backing Ainge. Now that Ainge has turned that slop of a team he in herited into one that incudes Ray Allen and the most coveted player this offseason - Kevin Garnett - AND held onto Pierc - how do you feel about Ainge?

I'd especially like to hear from those who have beat up as as being the worst GM in the NBA etc.


----------



## Premier

I discussed this with cpaw, so I'll just post what I said [in chat format]:

cpawfan: with this trade, the celtics have almost made up
Premier: for hiring Pitino
Premier: nah
Premier: ainge made up for the szczerbiak deal with this one
Premier: with the ray allen trade
Premier: he made up for the lafrentz deal
Premier: the funny thing
Premier: is that ainge took like five years
Premier: when he could've done it in three...really
Premier: he has ADD or something...he doesn't know what direction to go with...until he is forced to "win now"
Premier: ainge didn't have a change of heart
Premier: the fans would not have come to a single game if he didn't make a move
Premier: the sad thing is
Premier: all of his apologists will say that he's been planning this all along
cpawfan: true
Premier: the easy rebuttal is...why do the szczerbiak trade...why do the lafrentz trade?
Premier: ainge is still far from competent
Premier: NI actually made a good point
Premier: his bone-headed moves resulted in good trade assets
Premier: not because he planned it
Premier: but because he's damn lucky


----------



## Causeway

Ainge did not plan to trade for picks and it was just luck?? Ok.


----------



## Premier

Of course, he did. That's a very vague plan, though.

Why do the Szczerbiak trade? Why do the LaFrentz trade?


----------



## P-Dub34

"Ainge, Ainge, Ainge!
How do you like me, how do you like me?
Ainge, Ainge, Ainge!
Why don't you like me, nobody likes me."

As if getting Allen and Garnett was the plan all along and he had to stockpile LaFrentz and Szczerbiak to get them. Please.

The roster's absolutely better than when he started, though. I'll give him that.


----------



## Causeway

No one said that getting Ray and KG was the specific plan. Simply that the plan was to get assets in picks since the team he inherited had no assets short of PP and Walker. The picks would either be players to keep or trade. He traded some for 2 allstars. Very simple.

You are not a good poet by the way .


----------



## Causeway

Premier said:


> Of course, he did. That's a very vague plan, though.
> 
> Why do the Szczerbiak trade? Why do the LaFrentz trade?


The path was not perfect. Whoes is?


----------



## P-Dub34

Too bad the moves he made strongly, strongly contradict the claim that this was his plan all along.


----------



## Causeway

P-Dub34 said:


> Too bad the moves he made strongly, strongly contradict the claim that this was his plan all along.


How? And again I did not say it was "the plan". It was get picks - which he did in every trade - to keep or trade. Where's the strong contradiction?


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

i just got home from the gym and im really tired so im gonna write a short answer now and elaborate tomorrow...these 2 deals for garnett and allen were amazing, but that doesnt make up for the other half dozen boneheaded moves that hes made that had us watching this team in agony for the last 5 years...others that he has traded for or signed include jiri welsch, raef lafrentz, sebastian telfair, wally sczerbiak, brian scalabrine etc...he got damn lucky with these moves, and it doesnt make up for the face that hes made so many damn trades since hes been here that he cant keep a freakin team together for more than 6 months...hes still a bonehead, a lucky bonehead


----------



## seifer0406

Ainge lucked out on Garnett. Up until the KG trade, everything has been a big mess. 

It is safe to say that if you are building a team tomorrow, you wouldn't want Ainge be building it for you.


----------



## P-Dub34

Causeway said:


> How? And again I did not say it was "the plan". It was get picks - which he did in every trade - to keep or trade. Where's the strong contradiction?


So his objective was to acquire picks regardless of how bad it's sabotaging the team? If that was his plan, it had huge, HUGE backfire potential. Basically, if he DIDN'T get Garnett, he screwed the team for years. I find it hard to believe that was all done purposefully.


----------



## c_dog

Ainge made some good trades recently but he's still a bad GM. The only reason they were able to land Ray Allen was because they just landed Kevin Durant, and their rookie GM is an even bigger moron and had his mind made up about trading Allen, therefore settling for a bad trade(#5 pick, wally sczerbiak, delonte west for a prennial all-star?). The also got lucky with landing KG from the twolves because *shock* Ainge and Kevin McHale were former teammates so Boston had an edge on the Garnett Sweepstakes, not to mention the wolves pretty much had no choice but to trade Garnett at this point. Getting Allen earlier makes Celtics a more attractive destination for Garnett as well.


----------



## Causeway

Let me get this straight. When Ainge made moves people did not like, he was a bonehead. When he makes moves to bring in 2 allstars, it's just luck? To be able to get Allen we needed the pieces to make the trade. That was not luck. Many teams wanted Allen. And to get Garnett we needed the pieces to make the trade, and Boston had to be attractive for him to want to come here. That was not luck.

We have the best 3 players we've had in 20 years thanks to Ainge.


----------



## Premier

Causeway said:


> How? And again I did not say it was "the plan". It was get picks - which he did in every trade - to keep or trade. Where's the strong contradiction?


First-round draft selections are regularly sold for three million dollars cash. Ainge has no concept of cap management and veteran value. That is what makes him a poor general manager.


----------



## Premier

Causeway said:


> Let me get this straight. When Ainge made moves people did not like, he was a bonehead. When he makes moves to bring in 2 allstars, it's just luck? To be able to get Allen we needed the pieces to make the trade. That was not luck. Many teams wanted Allen. And to get Garnett we needed the pieces to make the trade, and Boston had to be attractive for him to want to come here. That was not luck.
> 
> We have the best 3 players we've had in 20 years thanks to Ainge.


I give Ainge credit for the original Ricky Davis deal and the Ray Allen deal. That's it, as far as trades.


----------



## Causeway

Premier said:


> I give Ainge credit for the original Ricky Davis deal and the Ray Allen deal. That's it, as far as trades.


Garnett does not come here without Ray Allen. How do you not give Ainge credit for Garnett if you give him credit for Ray?


----------



## Premier

Some Celtics fans here have been proposing the same trade for months. Obviously Ainge took a fortunate risk in trading for Allen without knowing it would sway Garnett, but I can't really commend him on a deal that was quite obvious.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

Causeway said:


> Let me get this straight. When Ainge made moves people did not like, he was a bonehead. When he makes moves to bring in 2 allstars, it's just luck? To be able to get Allen we needed the pieces to make the trade. That was not luck. Many teams wanted Allen. And to get Garnett we needed the pieces to make the trade, and Boston had to be attractive for him to want to come here. That was not luck.
> 
> We have the best 3 players we've had in 20 years thanks to Ainge.




to be able to get allen the "pieces" included a top 5 overall pick, which in order to get you have to SUCK for a whole year...so im sorry if dont give him credit for getting allen because we had to sacrifice an 82 game season for him


all these draft picks that we got to acquire pieces and more picks is because we havent won in 5 years, so each year we get another top pick to take or trade for another "piece"...if you want to commend him for having us be terrible for 5 years in order to get all these picks and pieces then you can, i will not commend him for that


----------



## seifer0406

Causeway said:


> Garnett does not come here without Ray Allen. How do you not give Ainge credit for Garnett if you give him credit for Ray?


It was not like KG *had* to come to Boston after they got Ray Allen. It increased their chances of getting KG, but if KG chose to go elsewhere or stay in Minnesota, the Celtics were pretty locked in mediocrity for another decade. 

There is a reason to why not many teams' use Ainge's approach of rebuilding that includes:

- Stay in the cellar for x amount of years
- Try to acquire as many young players and get to the point where these young players look promising yet not enough promise to get your team winning again.
- Find other struggling franchises and try to get their star player with the assets you have acquired over the years.

People just don't go for plans like this, there are way too many variables and luck involved. You either go with the youth movement, or go free agent/trade heavy or you combine the both and start with youth and add free agents. You don't start with youth and dump the youth halfway and all of a sudden become a veteran team. Celtics were lucky enough that it happened for them, but it's not something that is worth duplicating.

Give credit for Ainge if you want, but it still doesn't erase all the mistakes that he's made over the years. And it's really stretching it to say that it was all part of a big plan of sort. Unless Ainge is some sort of God that could predict all these things, the only person that's closest to God in Boston wears #20 for the Celtics.


----------



## agoo

Premier said:


> I discussed this with cpaw, so I'll just post what I said [in chat format]:
> 
> cpawfan: with this trade, the celtics have almost made up
> Premier: for hiring Pitino
> Premier: nah
> Premier: ainge made up for the szczerbiak deal with this one
> Premier: with the ray allen trade
> Premier: he made up for the lafrentz deal
> Premier: the funny thing
> Premier: is that ainge took like five years
> Premier: when he could've done it in three...really
> Premier: he has ADD or something...he doesn't know what direction to go with...until he is forced to "win now"
> Premier: ainge didn't have a change of heart
> Premier: the fans would not have come to a single game if he didn't make a move
> Premier: the sad thing is
> Premier: all of his apologists will say that he's been planning this all along
> cpawfan: true
> Premier: the easy rebuttal is...why do the szczerbiak trade...why do the lafrentz trade?
> Premier: ainge is still far from competent
> Premier: NI actually made a good point
> Premier: his bone-headed moves resulted in good trade assets
> Premier: not because he planned it
> Premier: but because he's damn lucky


That's a fairly liberal use of the word "discussion."

We went from a bad team that was better than a lot of bad teams to a team that has media folk asking about championships. Maybe we won't win one with these guys, but we're thinking about it and that's a significant change.

The last two moves have nothing at all in common with his previous ones, but I think we're seeing Pierce going to him and saying make a move or move me. Ainge chose to make a move, which was the only choice he had after we lost the Oden sweepstakes.

Overall, he's not the ideal executive, but he's clearly admitted that his plan wasn't working and now he's changing it up. How many other execs will do that?


----------



## E.H. Munro

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> to be able to get allen the "pieces" included a top 5 overall pick, which in order to get you have to SUCK for a whole year...so im sorry if dont give him credit for getting allen because we had to sacrifice an 82 game season for him


The funniest part of the Ray Allen trade was the fact that what made it possible was the _failure_ of the rebuilding project.


----------



## Truth34

I can't say I'm surprised at some of the moronic responses I am reading on this thread, but I think Causeway and myself will enjoy this season more than most of you, because you doubted Danny's plan.

He inherited a garbage team laden with Paul Pierce, a player we were paying $12M to show up to practice drunk, crappy young players, and started drafting well and improving the CHARACTER of this team.

They won the Atlantic once, continued the playoff string of 4 seasons in a row, and though they made the lottery twice in a row...added young pieces that landed us two SUPERSTARS...

We are the best team in the East right now--period. Call it luck, edit-aqua, please continue but Danny's pieces, of which I am convinced only Al will be a star, landed us a shot at #17. He wasn't afraid to take risks, which reminds me of Arnold "Red" Auerbach. Red wasn't perfect either; he actually didn't want Cousy. But we're here now, and I think Danny...and Causeway were right. 

I'll tell you this...the fans of the Lakers, Suns, and about 15 other teams wish their GMs had the balls of Danny Ainge.


----------



## Premier

Explain the first Szczerbiak and LaFrentz trade and how they fit in with the direction of the team.


----------



## Truth34

Here's what I'll explain...Danny worked his butt off to get good basketball players. When injuries struck, the Celtics tried to get Oden or Durant. When that didn't happen, and all of you were calling for his head, Danny worked his butt off even harder, and now Vegas is listing the Celtics as FAVORITES to win the East with the best 1-2-3 in the NBA. 

A third insult and you'll wonder "why can I not post here anymore?" -aqua


----------



## Premier

We're all Celtics fans here, but this is a messageboard. We argue here; not insult.

You still have not answered my question. Obviously I'm very excited about the season and I've been calling for this for quite some time [in fact, I called for the acquisition of legitimate all-stars while Ainge was still drooling over his young players], but you have not rationally given me an appropriate answer.


----------



## Truth34

If by the direction of the team, you mean Ainge's fulfillment of his plan to get rid of dead weight, bring in young talent, and try to develop or trade that talent to make the Celtics contenders again (which I believe they are now and haven't been since the day Larry Bird walked out that door), I will answer your question as follows:

Danny got rid of Antoine to bring in younger talent--LaFrentz was the salary he had to get to match salaries. He got Jiri (first round pick from Cleveland, Rondo), Chris Mills expiring contract (turned into a #1 pick) and another #1 (Delonte--see Allen, Ray)

As far as the Szcerbiak deal, Danny made a mistake by re-signing Blount. He got rid of bad character...Blount, and got a #1 pick (used in the Garnett deal), and Wally used in the Seattle deal.

I think you have to say Danny will be the executive of the year. He turned a 24-win team into a 3-headed monster and he's not done. 

He has also drafted well throughout his tenure (Gomes, Powe, Big Bay all in 2nd round--Jefferson 15th overall, Gerald Green in KG deal, Delonte late 1st)


----------



## Premier

He trades the second best player on the team for dead weight and then trades the second best player for dead weight and then he trades dead weight for more dead weight and then he trades dead weight for Ray Allen and stumbles upon Kevin Garnett. Pure luck. No direction. Not even one fiber of cap management.

I never said he didn't draft well [he's not perfect at this, though...he failed to follow through with the Monta Ellis promise, the Amir Johnson promise, among others].

I'll have my _real_ rebuttal to your last post soon.


----------



## narrator

ehmunro said:


> The funniest part of the Ray Allen trade was the fact that what made it possible was the _failure_ of the rebuilding project.


That pretty much sums up Danny Ainge's tenure. Well said.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

ehmunro said:


> The funniest part of the Ray Allen trade was the fact that what made it possible was the _failure_ of the rebuilding project.



AND it was also made possible when seattle got the number 2 pick and Durant...they decided to build around durant and realized that allen would not fit with the rebuilding plan so they moved allen for another draft pick...had they not gotten durant, like they shouldnt have statistically, ray allen would not be a celtic...another reason why luck had plenty to do with the current celtics roster...i doubt danny planned seattle to get a top 2 pick and then want to move allen


----------



## Truth34

I can't believe I'm reading this garbage. GO CELTICS!!! See you at the Garden.


----------



## E.H. Munro

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> AND it was also made possible when seattle got the number 2 pick and Durant...they decided to build around durant and realized that allen would not fit with the rebuilding plan so they moved allen for another draft pick...had they not gotten durant, like they shouldnt have statistically, ray allen would not be a celtic...another reason why luck had plenty to do with the current celtics roster...i doubt danny planned seattle to get a top 2 pick and then want to move allen


It wouldn't matter if it was Ray Allen (who probably would have been gone in any case, because Seattle realised that it was time to blow the thing down to the foundations). If Boston landed #1 or #2, you just know that it would be Pierce that was gone, and this would be Durant/Jefferson Celtics. Because Boston didn't land 1 or 2, they ended up with a highly desirable commodity (the draft pick) to be used in trade. But they would never have had that pick if the GM knew what he was doing. :bsmile:


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

Truth34 said:


> I can't believe I'm reading this garbage. GO CELTICS!!! See you at the Garden.



you have added so much to this discussion with this post, thank you.


----------



## aquaitious

Truth34 said:


> I can't say I'm surprised at some of the moronic responses I am reading on this thread, but I think Causeway and myself will enjoy this season more than most of you, because you doubted Danny's plan.


That was quite a plan. Go young, try to win now, go young again and now try to win again all in a four year span.



Truth34 said:


> He inherited a garbage team laden with Paul Pierce, a player we were paying $12M to show up to practice drunk, crappy young players, and started drafting well and improving the CHARACTER of this team.


Yeah, the garbage team got replaced by the likes of Scalabrine, LaFrentz and Szczerbiak.



Truth34 said:


> They won the Atlantic once, continued the playoff string of 4 seasons in a row, and though they made the lottery twice in a row...added young pieces that landed us two SUPERSTARS...


They won the atlantic because they were the hottest team in basketball acquiring the player that Danny Ainge traded on his first month on the job. There was also a season they went 36-46 and made the playoffs, yet that's nothing to put on your resume. 



Truth34 said:


> I'll tell you this...the fans of the Lakers, Suns, and about 15 other teams wish their GMs had the balls of Danny Ainge.


Because it takes balls to land two all-stars?



Premier said:


> Explain the first Szczerbiak and LaFrentz trade and how they fit in with the direction of the team.


When Danny took over in 2003, and we were debating how the following season will be, Danny was thinking of 2007, where he gets the fifth pick in the draft and then trades it for Ray Allen, making KG change his mind to come to Boston, too. Duh!


----------



## Truth34

Yeah...it was only LaFrentz and Scalabrine....He didn't add Jefferson, Delonte West, Tony Allen, Rondo, Gomes, etc., and then convince other teams of their value.

I'm glad you guys all know more about basketball then our GM (and apparently all the other GMs who couldn't upgrade their teams)...it probably makes you sleep well at night and you won't be conflicted when the Celtics go to the Finals this year.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

Truth34 said:


> Yeah...it was only LaFrentz and Scalabrine....He didn't add Jefferson, Delonte West, Tony Allen, Rondo, Gomes, etc., and then convince other teams of their value.
> 
> I'm glad you guys all know more about basketball then our GM (and apparently all the other GMs who couldn't upgrade their teams)...it probably makes you sleep well at night and you won't be conflicted when the Celtics go to the Finals this year.




way to disregard every othe rpoint in aquas post because you have absolutely no rebuttal for any of them


----------



## Truth34

Here's your rebuttal....

GARNETT ALLEN PIERCE

BIG TICKET JESUS SHUTTLESWORTH THE TRUTH

Rebut that. "He got lucky" ain't gonna cut it. All of the pundits even are giving Danny credit. He can't get it from pseudo-Celtic fans?


----------



## Premier

I'm less of a Celtics fan because I question some of their transactions? Look, I'm extremely happy that the Celtics have three all-star to superstar players. In fact, it makes me look good for predicting this. I'm just not ready to change my views in regards to Ainge's incompetence.


----------



## vandyke

People on this board are crazy how you can still come down on Ainge after what he has accomplished is crazy, just about every national writer who has bashed Ainge over the years has had to eat crow and finally admit to what Ainge supporters have known for years he is one of the best GM's in the NBA and he just went out and proved it. This is a great day I have been waiting for this day after all the cheap shots we have taken over the last couple of years from all of these national writers and all of these so-called Celtics fans on this board with no faith in the home town team. All I have to say is:

HOW DO YOU LIKE US NOW?

Now I am off to the Trailblazers forum to raise hell after listening to them chirp about how they stole Brandon Roy last year and how bad a GM Ainge was, and what big suckers we were for making that deal, well thanks to them taking that crappy LaFrentz contract we now have KG in Boston so as much crap as I had to read about Brandon Roy, I have a little KG talk for them today.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

one of the best gms in the nba??? wow...seems like some ppl are forgetting weve won what a total of 100 games in the last 5 years...but no thats right this was all part of dannys plan...come in, blow up the team, suck for 5 years then trade all the picks and players youve gotten for sucking for 2 superstars...hes a genius


----------



## agoo

I think calling Ainge incompetent is a bit of an overstatement. Questionable, definately. But not incompetent. Kevin McHale and Billy King are incompetent. Ainge is questionable.


----------



## aquaitious

van**** said:


> People on this board are crazy how you can still come down on Ainge after what he has accomplished is crazy, just about every national writer who has bashed Ainge over the years has had to eat crow and finally admit to what Ainge supporters have known for years he is one of the best GM's in the NBA and he just went out and proved it. This is a great day I have been waiting for this day after all the cheap shots we have taken over the last couple of years from all of these national writers and all of these so-called Celtics fans on this board with no faith in the home town team. All I have to say is:
> 
> HOW DO YOU LIKE US NOW?
> 
> Now I am off to the Trailblazers forum to raise hell after listening to them chirp about how they stole Brandon Roy last year and how bad a GM Ainge was, and what big suckers we were for making that deal, well thanks to them taking that crappy LaFrentz contract we now have KG in Boston so as much crap as I had to read about Brandon Roy, I have a little KG talk for them today.


If that was the plan all along, I must say he fooled the whole world of basketball.

I mean, that's one hell of a plan, being able to predict the future and all.

The deal is great, but neither deal doesn't happen if Seattle doesn't get the second pick. I guess it does take "balls" to have this plan since 2003.


----------



## Causeway

Premier said:


> Some Celtics fans here have been proposing the same trade for months. Obviously Ainge took a fortunate risk in trading for Allen without knowing it would sway Garnett, but I can't really commend him on a deal that was quite obvious.


I will never get the "well it was obvious so the GM gets no credit" theory. So to get credit it has to be surprising and not so obvious - even if the obvious lands you one of the top players in the game? And either way you need the pieces in place to get a Garnett. Did we have that before Ainge got here? No. It's all in the prep work.


----------



## Causeway

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:



> to be able to get allen the "pieces" included a top 5 overall pick, which in order to get you have to SUCK for a whole year...so im sorry if dont give him credit for getting allen because we had to sacrifice an 82 game season for him
> 
> 
> all these draft picks that we got to acquire pieces and more picks is because we havent won in 5 years, so each year we get another top pick to take or trade for another "piece"...if you want to commend him for having us be terrible for 5 years in order to get all these picks and pieces then you can, i will not commend him for that


It's very obvious and very well known that we tanked. That is very different from simply sucking. And the tanking led to Allen which led to Garnett. Nice decision Danny.


----------



## Causeway

aquaitious said:


> If that was the plan all along, I must say he fooled the whole world of basketball.
> 
> I mean, that's one hell of a plan, being able to predict the future and all.
> 
> The deal is great, but neither deal doesn't happen if Seattle doesn't get the second pick. I guess it does take "balls" to have this plan since 2003.


Seattle getting the pick only made Allen available. It did not make us have the pieces in place to make the trade. That was all in the gound work done by Mr. Ainge.


----------



## Causeway

Simmons:



> From the beginning, Danny Ainge's stated game plan was to blow up a decent 2004 team, stockpile as many assets as possible, then eventually trade those assets for one or two impact guys. In a roundabout way, that's exactly what he did


----------



## Premier

Again, that's a very vague plan. Plus, certain move indicate otherwise.


----------



## o.iatlhawksfan

You have posted many times in various threads, only to lead the topic astray. This is about the fourth time you have posted this video and it has absolutely no relevance. If you feel you have something to contribute, please do so, but make sure that it is an actual contribution and not some gimmick post. Thanks.

*Premier*


----------



## Premier

Causeway said:


> I will never get the "well it was obvious so the GM gets no credit" theory. So to get credit it has to be surprising and not so obvious - even if the obvious lands you one of the top players in the game? And either way you need the pieces in place to get a Garnett. Did we have that before Ainge got here? No. It's all in the prep work.


Sure, doing the obvious move is the right thing to do, but then again, doing the obvious move is well...obvious...and should do nothing to change perceptions of Ainge.


----------



## Sixerfanforlife

My feelings on the KG Trade are as followed(Hope you like my article ^^):

For the Celtics, Kevin Garnett was a BIG risk. Besides their core obviously being 30+, they have nothing left....

A big fat nothing. Of course, this is what Celtics fans wanted. After the tank job failed miserably, Danny Ainge needed to find another way. Another way to bring this team back to it's glory days. This will be a very short relived days though.
Even Celtics fans can see what'll happen once KG, PP, or Ray Allen (Allen's likely the first one to go, bare the Celtics winning) retire. What'll happen is that they'll have two "stars" barely in their prime with little or nothing to support them.....
As a Sixers fan, I have to warn yall, we've been there, done that. Of course, it's not our fault that A: Maurice Cheeks truly is a *******, and a horrible coach. B: That the "veteran" "superstars" of our team didn't utalize their other players, instead tried to outscore everyone. C: That, as usual, we depended on Dalembert to be a defensive stalworth and really, came up with nothing.

The Celtics are in a too similar situation. Doc Rivers is good with young guys, he develops them, but how about veterans or stars, I think we all know Tracy McGrady's playoff track record, he's responsible for most of that. While KG, PP, and Sharp Gun Ray are unselfish veterans who want an NBA title, again, it goes to this fact: They have nothing else. They don't even have a Samuel Dalembert at center. Infact, WHO IS going to be their starting center? Kenderick Perkins? Perkins was a bust ala Kwame Brown while a solid rebounder, he typically is a weak-side shot blocker. Not a guy who you can trust as your "anchor in the middle". Don't get me wrong Celtics fans, your gonna probably average 100-104 pts a game, while having a cohesive balance of speed. Your probably gonna win this division, or give the Knicks a run for their money, being the 2nd most talented team in it. But Danny Ainge really should have waited 1 more year and a few draft picks, then it would truly be reliving the Dynasty Era. (Hell, KG might even come cheaper). But for now, unless some of the Celtics scrubbies that they have to sign come up and pull a miracle similar to those fairy tale stories, it's liking going to end up in a playoff run, nothing more or anything less. We can definately see to it that the Knicks will provide us excitment though. Either it'll be their first playoff apperance in quite a while or it'll be another losing season, of which, we can all laugh at.


----------



## narrator

Causeway said:


> In a roundabout way, that's exactly what he did.


The key word is "roundabout". The key idea in Simmons' piece is that Ainge accomplished, kinda, what he set out to do except it took 5 years and a lot of craptastic teams to do it. The fact that he hit the reset button several times, esp. indicative is the Wally trade, is there. The fact that the situation was right for this to happen - Seattle got Durant and blew their team up, McHale/Taylor drove Garnett out of town - does NOT make him a good GM. Nor does it mean that his "plan" was well conceived. The inability to admit this means the Ainge supporter arguments in this thread - to paint them all with the same brush - don't hold water. You can't possibly bury your head in the sand and pretend you knew all along that everything was going to work out this way.

Things could be very different for Boston. I think this was a phenomenal trade. I also think there is no way Ainge makes this trade 6 weeks or 6 months or a year ago. I think this is a case of Ainge getting the better of McHale/Taylor because everyone involved is desperate: Ainge to keep his job, McHale/Taylor to prove they're not idiots. The former succeeded; the latter did not. Making this very good trade does not excuse Ainge's miserable performance as GM since he took over.


----------



## P-Dub34

Nobody has mentioned another gem of an Ainge move in giving Glenn Rivers a new contract.

And let's not pretend it wasn't just Ainge reading this board and my personal message, and deciding to get some help in here.


----------



## Causeway

Premier said:


> Sure, doing the obvious move is the right thing to do, but then again, doing the obvious move is well...obvious...and should do nothing to change perceptions of Ainge.


That makes absolutely no sense. 

It was obvious that Ainge was going to trade for Allen to lure Garnett who very recently said he did not want to play in Boston?

Also the point is that the moves Ainge made over the years put us in the position to land KG. It did not happen over night. And if the final move was obvious, that does not gain the GM props? No logic to that.


----------



## Causeway

narrator said:


> The key word is "roundabout". The key idea in Simmons' piece is that Ainge accomplished, kinda, what he set out to do except it took 5 years and a lot of craptastic teams to do it. The fact that he hit the reset button several times, esp. indicative is the Wally trade, is there.


And? He put us in the position to have the best 3 players this team has had in 20 years. Not kinda. Definitely.



> The fact that the situation was right for this to happen - Seattle got Durant and blew their team up,


That made Allen available. Ainge put us in the position to have the pieces to trade for him. Many players have been available over the years that we did not get. This one we (Ainge) did.



> McHale/Taylor drove Garnett out of town - does NOT make him a good GM.


That does not mean he was going to end up in Boston. Every team would like to have Garnett. We had the pieces and players (thanks Danny) to get it done.



> Nor does it mean that his "plan" was well conceived. The inability to admit this means the Ainge supporter arguments in this thread - to paint them all with the same brush - don't hold water. You can't possibly bury your head in the sand and pretend you knew all along that everything was going to work out this way.


You never know. But read my posts over the years. I supported what was going on well before this summer. And I stated MANY times that Ainge was trading for youth and picks to either keep or trade. Look it up. How am I burying my head in the sand? I have been 100% consistent in my support of the path.




> Things could be very different for Boston. I think this was a phenomenal trade. I also think there is no way Ainge makes this trade 6 weeks or 6 months or a year ago. I think this is a case of Ainge getting the better of McHale/Taylor because everyone involved is desperate: Ainge to keep his job, McHale/Taylor to prove they're not idiots. The former succeeded; the latter did not. Making this very good trade does not excuse Ainge's miserable performance as GM since he took over.


It was not a miserable performace at all. It was laying the gound work. It was taking some steps back to move forward. It's very simple.


----------



## Premier

Causeway said:


> It was obvious that Ainge was going to trade for Allen to lure Garnett who very recently said he did not want to play in Boston?


Stop asking questions that I've already answered. If you do not feel the answer was satisfactory, then address that. Don't ask the same question again.

"Some Celtics fans here have been proposing the same trade for months. Obviously Ainge took a fortunate risk in trading for Allen without knowing it would sway Garnett, but I can't really commend him on a deal that was quite obvious."

Let me clarify. I give Ainge credit for the Allen trade. Even without the Garnett trade, I thought it was a fantastic move. It was a risk in regards to changing Garnett's perception, but it turned out well. As for the Garnett trade, I cannot give Ainge my compliments for it since it was the natural move after the Allen trade [and before it, as well].



> Also the point is that the moves Ainge made over the years put us in the position to land KG. It did not happen over night. And if the final move was obvious, that does not gain the GM props? No logic to that.


Ainge made a number of moves that disrupted the path.


----------



## Causeway

Premier said:


> Stop asking questions that I've already answered. If you do not feel the answer was satisfactory, then address that. Don't ask the same question again.
> 
> 
> "Some Celtics fans here have been proposing the same trade for months. Obviously Ainge took a fortunate risk in trading for Allen without knowing it would sway Garnett, but I can't really commend him on a deal that was quite obvious."



Are you scolding me now? I'll ask what I like. Don't answer if you don't want. I may have missed your exact response. I think Ainge had to at least have an idea that adding Ray would make the Celtics more attractive to Garnett and anyone else. 



Premier said:


> Let me clarify. I give Ainge credit for the Allen trade. Even without the Garnett trade, I thought it was a fantastic move. It was a risk in regards to changing Garnett's perception, but it turned out well. As for the Garnett trade, I cannot give Ainge my compliments for it since it was the natural move after the Allen trade [and before it, as well].


Again, there's no logic in this, but that's your prerogative. The work is on the foundation, not the final move.




Premier said:


> Ainge made a number of moves that disrupted the path.


Maybe. In the end he got it done.


----------



## Premier

This back and forth accomplishes nothing. We'll both stick to our opinions, I guess. Let's just agree that the Celtics are quite talented now only because they decided to stop overvaluing their young players and pick up proven talent. It should be an exciting season.


----------



## Causeway

Premier said:


> It should be an exciting season.


Agreed.


----------



## Truth34

I third this. Kudos for Danny for overvaluing his players until he could get 2 future HOFers in here to join another one.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

damn the tension is building around here huh???...cant we all just get along :makeout:


----------



## P2TheTruth34

Overall, he has done a good job.
Why? I know that fool didn't plan it.
Do I trust him after this fantastic off-season? Absolutely not.

He is trigger happy. I guess if you fidget around enough, you'll have to end up with something good, at some point.


----------



## agoo

At the least, could we agree that he's been awesome since June?


----------



## aquaitious

Causeway said:


> Seattle getting the pick only made Allen available. It did not make us have the pieces in place to make the trade. That was all in the gound work done by Mr. Ainge.


I still don't see where Danny gets all the credit.

I guess you could give him some credit for getting Tony Allen and Delonte West, but then again draft picks were being sold that year at a relatively cheap price.

Al Jefferson was wanted by every Celtic fan in the world. He pretty much slipped into our hands.

Gerald Green, same.

Ryan Gomes was supposed to be a first rounder.

Rondo was probably Ainge's best pick.

Who else did he get? Scalabrine, LaFrentz, Welsch, Sczcerbiak, Kandiman.


----------



## P-Dub34

agoo101284 said:


> At the least, could we agree that he's been awesome since June?


Absolutely. All the picks and huge contracts he acquired at the cost of team success made for some great pieces to trade!


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

P-Dub34 said:


> Absolutely. All the picks and huge contracts he acquired at the cost of team success made for some great pieces to trade!



well said


----------



## Causeway

P-Dub34 said:


> Absolutely. All the picks and huge contracts he acquired at the cost of team success made for some great pieces to trade!


Exactly - and the turned that into Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett, all while keeping Pierce. Ainge inherited a team of slop. He had Walker and Pierce - and then no cap space and ZERO young guys to work with or trade. FA's did not want to come here. Even GP did not want to be here. That team was going nowhere. What success did he sacrifice? That team not winning a title, sorry. So yes, he took a path that was a step back. Was it worth it? We now have the best chance we have had in about 20 years at real success. I'd say it was worth it.


----------



## E.H. Munro

> Seattle getting the pick only made Allen available. It did not make us have the pieces in place to make the trade. That was all in the gound work done by Mr. Ainge.


The "pieces" were the fifth pick in the draft, which was acquired due to the abject failure of the rebuilding effort. If the rebuilding project were working to any degree, they wouldn't have landed the high pick. So, yes, in a roundabout way one can say that if Danny hadn't utterly failed he wouldn't be in a position to trade for Ray Allen.


----------



## Causeway

> The "pieces" were the fifth pick in the draft, which was acquired due to the abject failure of the rebuilding effort. If the rebuilding project were working to any degree, they wouldn't have landed the high pick. So, yes, in a roundabout way one can say that if Danny hadn't utterly failed he wouldn't be in a position to trade for Ray Allen.


We tanked. Tank you very much.


----------



## agoo

We had a **** team and they played accordingly. Lets get it straight.

Granted Pierce's injury probably wasn't as bad as it was made out to be, but that's ok. Lets just say we had a **** team and they played accordingly.


----------



## Causeway

agoo101284 said:


> We had a **** team and they played accordingly. Lets get it straight.
> 
> Granted Pierce's injury probably wasn't as bad as it was made out to be, but that's ok. Lets just say we had a **** team and they played accordingly.


No, we tanked. Some of the lineups were very clearly not the best we could of had on the floor. This was obvious. It was also stated by Gomes. We tanked.


----------



## Truth34

Danny inherited a team over the cap, w/a $14M drunk at PF, and no trading pieces besides Paul Pierce. Sorry, guys, but whether it's luck or skill, Danny gets the credit--that's how this works. Just like Clinton can take the credit for the economic prosperity of the 90's, Danny can take the credit for this. And frankly, he deserves it.


----------



## E.H. Munro

agoo101284 said:


> We had a **** team and they played accordingly. Lets get it straight.
> 
> Granted Pierce's injury probably wasn't as bad as it was made out to be, but that's ok. Lets just say we had a **** team and they played accordingly.


Pierce limped the entire year (until they shut him down). So it's safe to say that the foot was probably in bad shape. Given that his ratio of jumpers to drives went from 60/40 to 80/20 last year, I think we can say that he was legitimately hurting. And, yeah, that team out on the court busted butt to win, but they couldn't even beat the Hawks (who were playing at half speed). That 4-31 record is pretty hard to explain away for those folks. :bsmile:



Truth34 said:


> Just like Clinton can take the credit for the economic prosperity of the 90's


He can try, but he didn't have jack **** to do with it.


----------



## P-Dub34

Causeway said:


> Exactly - and the turned that into Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett, all while keeping Pierce. Ainge inherited a team of slop. He had Walker and Pierce - and then no cap space and ZERO young guys to work with or trade. FA's did not want to come here. Even GP did not want to be here. That team was going nowhere. What success did he sacrifice? That team not winning a title, sorry. So yes, he took a path that was a step back. Was it worth it? We now have the best chance we have had in about 20 years at real success. I'd say it was worth it.


I don't think anyone's debating that he has put this team in a great position right now.

I'm saying that I cannot possibly see how this was his plan all along.


----------



## BlakeJesus

P-Dub34 said:


> I don't think anyone's debating that he has put this team in a great position right now.
> 
> I'm saying that I cannot possibly see how this was his plan all along.


I agree, you can't honestly believe he had this plan all drew up in the back of his head to get Ray Ray and KG. I'm sure he at least thought about getting one of those, but the rest kind of fell into his lap.


----------



## Causeway

GregOden said:


> I agree, you can't honestly believe he had this plan all drew up in the back of his head to get Ray Ray and KG. I'm sure he at least thought about getting one of those, but the rest kind of fell into his lap.


No one is saying he all along, specifically, was going for Allen and KG. But he was all along picking up youth and picks to keep, or trade for talent. He traded for talent.


----------



## BlakeJesus

Causeway said:


> No one is saying he all along, specifically, was going for Allen and KG. But he was all along picking up youth and picks to keep, or trade for talent. He traded for talent.


You're making it sound like that's some revolutionary strategy that nobody has ever tried before.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. He seems to have done a good job without really being good at his job.


----------



## Causeway

GregOden said:


> You're making it sound like that's some revolutionary strategy that nobody has ever tried before.


Where are you getting that? Where did I say it was revolutionary? It was effective.



GregOden said:


> Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. He seems to have done a good job without really being good at his job.


makes no sense.


----------



## BlakeJesus

Causeway said:


> Where are you getting that? Where did I say it was revolutionary? It was effective.
> 
> 
> 
> makes no sense.


You never said it was revolutionary but you're trying to make it out like Ainge did something that EVERY other team in the league doesn't try do. 

And it does make sense. It's called luck. Doing good without actually being good.


----------



## Causeway

GregOden said:


> You never said it was revolutionary but you're trying to make it out like Ainge did something that EVERY other team in the league doesn't try do.
> 
> And it does make sense. It's called luck. Doing good without actually being good.


What is it with you always trying to twist things? Just stick to what people say. 

You said Ainge had no plan. I simply stated that the plan and path was to gather youth and picks to either keep or trade. I said nothing about revolutions or what other GM's may or may not do. But as long as you are bringing it up - no, EVERY team does not in fact make trades for picks and/or youth. There are many ways to try and build a team.

Please explain how gathering picks and youth that led to trading for 2 allstars is luck.


----------



## BlakeJesus

Causeway said:


> What is it with you always trying to twist things? Just stick to what people say.
> 
> You said Ainge had no plan. I simply stated that the plan and path was to gather youth and picks to either keep or trade. I said nothing about revolutions or what other GM's may or may not do. But as long as you are bringing it up - no, EVERY team does not in fact make trades for picks and/or youth. There are many ways to try and build a team.
> 
> Please explain how gathering picks and youth that led to trading for 2 allstars is luck.


A lot of teams all throughout the league could put together an equal/better deal than the one the Celtics had to offer. They were simply lucky that the T Wolves were interested, and that KG was interested. Amare wasn't interested in ATL, and the deal got shot down (I know that's not all the reason, but just throwing that out there).

Everything kind of fell into their lap. They didn't go about drafting the talent and acquiring the players so they could trade them, they were trying to build for the future. Luckily for them the T Wolves were interested in a few players on their roster, and the deal went down.


----------



## Causeway

GregOden said:


> A lot of teams all throughout the league could put together an equal/better deal than the one the Celtics had to offer. They were simply lucky that the T Wolves were interested, and that KG was interested. Amare wasn't interested in ATL, and the deal got shot down (I know that's not all the reason, but just throwing that out there).


A lot? Name one other team that could of offered a similar "or better" package of youth plus picks that included one likely future allstar - and that team would still have 2 current allstars on their seaur to lure KG. Name one.



GregOden said:


> Everything kind of fell into their lap. They didn't go about drafting the talent and acquiring the players so they could trade them, they were trying to build for the future. Luckily for them the T Wolves were interested in a few players on their roster, and the deal went down.


Wrong. Ainge many times talked about having "chips". Chips to keep or chips to trade. Luck favors those who are prepared. We were prepared for the opportunity.


----------



## jworth

Funny how some people keep bashing Ainge. He had a plan and it worked.


----------



## Truth34

Not ONE team had a package equal to or better than what they got. We're talking picks, caproom and young talent. Nobody else had that.


----------



## E.H. Munro

P-Dub34 said:


> I don't think anyone's debating that he has put this team in a great position right now.
> 
> I'm saying that I cannot possibly see how this was his plan all along.


Considering that what he traded was the only young player with any trade value, and a draft pick that came as a result of the rebuilding effort's failure. I guess if Danny's master plan was to put together a team so bad that it couldn't beat the worst teams in the NBA, and then trade the resulting draft pick, we can be thankful that the players available were good. The most hilarious part of this is hearing the dipsnorkels that were singing the praises of the Celtics "youth movement" have now switched gears.

The simplest explanation is probably the correct one, after four years of abject failure, the ownership and front office decided to switch gears and abandon a failed youth movement. (Keeping in mind that the Celtics tried to unload Pierce for the #3 pick a few years back.)


----------



## aquaitious

ehmunro said:


> Considering that what he traded was the only young player with any trade value, and a draft pick that came as a result of the rebuilding effort's failure. I guess if Danny's master plan was to put together a team so bad that it couldn't beat the worst teams in the NBA, and then trade the resulting draft pick, we can be thankful that the players available were good. The most hilarious part of this is hearing the dipsnorkels that were singing the praises of the Celtics "youth movement" have now switched gears.
> 
> The simplest explanation is probably the correct one, after four years of abject failure, the ownership and front office decided to switch gears and abandon a failed youth movement. *(Keeping in mind that the Celtics tried to unload Pierce for the #3 pick a few years back.)*


You're wrong, that was all part of the plan!


----------



## Truth34

It wasn't abandoning the youth movement. If you could simplify Danny's plan, you could say his plan was to "Bring in good basketball players; to make the team more talented." He's done that.


----------



## Mateo

If this was all a "plan", he wouldn't have traded for Antoine Walker, Gary Payton, Wally Szczerbiak and others. His plan seemed to be to build a young core and load up big name vets on top of it.


----------



## Truth34

Walker and Payton were rentals...they won their division and got some revenue. They did not stall the development of young players too much. BOTTOM LINE: The Celtics look pretty good right now. Would they be any better off w/o Ainge given that he inherited a $13M alcoholic PF, low draft picks when he came in, and no real talent besides Pierce?


----------



## BlakeJesus

Causeway said:


> A lot? Name one other team that could of offered a similar "or better" package of youth plus picks that included one likely future allstar - and that team would still have 2 current allstars on their seaur to lure KG. Name one.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. Ainge many times talked about having "chips". Chips to keep or chips to trade. Luck favors those who are prepared. We were prepared for the opportunity.


The Bulls come to the forefront of my mind.


----------



## BlakeJesus

ehmunro said:


> Considering that what he traded was the only young player with any trade value, and a draft pick that came as a result of the rebuilding effort's failure. I guess if Danny's master plan was to put together a team so bad that it couldn't beat the worst teams in the NBA, and then trade the resulting draft pick, we can be thankful that the players available were good. The most hilarious part of this is hearing the dipsnorkels that were singing the praises of the Celtics "youth movement" have now switched gears.
> 
> The simplest explanation is probably the correct one, after four years of abject failure, the ownership and front office decided to switch gears and abandon a failed youth movement. (Keeping in mind that the Celtics tried to unload Pierce for the #3 pick a few years back.)


I've come to the conclusing that ehmunro should change his name to The Celtic Slayer, because he just gives it to you guys in all threads.

I'm pretty baked so I've decided not to make a point other than to laugh.


----------



## Premier

For what it's worth, McHale turned down far better offers from the Bulls last year.


----------



## P-Dub34

> I've come to the conclusing that ehmunro should change his name to The Celtic Slayer, because he just gives it to you guys in all threads.


EH is a Celtic fan, and "you guys" is pretty interesting considering most of the Celtic fans in here are in total agreement with him.


----------



## Truth34

So, the Bulls were offering 14M in cap space, 2 first round picks and studs? I like Deng, but I don't know if I would trade ANY bull for Jefferson, straight up. Then you factor in the cap space and the picks.


----------



## Premier

Deng is a far better prospect than Jefferson, in my opinion. The first-round draft selections were not significant, at all. Minnesota acquired a very late '09 first, while they could have simply acquired the Suns' '08 first for three million dollars next June. Chicago's offers included PJ Brown, similiar cap space.


----------



## Premier

Turns out I was wrong about Brown. This is from Sam Smith so its questionable:



> Timberwolves sources say there were discussions about the Bulls' first-round pick, which they used for Joakim Noah, a future first-rounder, Tyrus Thomas and potential short-term contracts involving P.J. Brown and others.
> 
> Minnesota balked before the 2007 draft with the Bulls, though not as strongly as it did a year ago when the Bulls were willing to part with Luol Deng, Tyson Chandler and the No. 2 overall pick in the draft for Garnett. Teams then were told Minnesota would never deal Garnett.


----------



## Premier

LaMarcus Aldrdige, Luol Deng, and Tyson Chandler > Jefferson and cap space. The Celtics were lucky that Garnett quietly demanded a trade this offseason and not last offseason.


----------



## BlakeJesus

Truth34 said:


> So, the Bulls were offering 14M in cap space, 2 first round picks and studs? I like Deng, but I don't know if I would trade ANY bull for Jefferson, straight up. Then you factor in the cap space and the picks.


LoL You think too highly of your teams (I guess in this case former) players. Bulls have far better young prospects than the Celts did.


----------



## E.H. Munro

GregOden said:


> I've come to the conclusing that ehmunro should change his name to The Celtic Slayer, because he just gives it to you guys in all threads.
> 
> I'm pretty baked so I've decided not to make a point other than to laugh.


I've been a rabid fan for more than 35 years. But I am also a ruthless realist. And not many people here disagree with me, but the handful that do are the most strident and vocal posters. As for me, I am ecstatic to see the Celtics reloaded and finally ready to compete.



Truth34 said:


> So, the Bulls were offering 14M in cap space, 2 first round picks and studs? I like Deng, but I don't know if I would trade ANY bull for Jefferson, straight up. Then you factor in the cap space and the picks.


Deng is likely to make a few more all star teams than Jefferson. But after his breakout season last year, he was no longer available. He's the most complete SF this side of LBJ. Foye, Deng, Chandler, and Aldridge would be a decent core to build around, even in the West (and Deng's presence would allow Foye to play his game). Fortunately for Boston Minnesota gave it one last shot with Garnett.


----------



## aquaitious

Let's not forget that this was KG's lowest price value of all time.


----------



## Causeway

I realize people will not give Ainge credit no matter what happens. It was either pure luck, or luck of timing, or the moons were in the right place, or only the obvious thing to do, KG was available because of whatever, Allen was available because of whatever etc......

However nothing stated in this thread negates the very simple and clear fact that you have to be in the position in the first place to take advantage of these situations. You have to have the picks. You have to have the valuable youth. You have to have the expiring contract. You have to have the allstars on your team to lure other allstars. This was all in the prep work, and all thanks to Ainge.

We were not the only teams that would of liked a Ray Allen AND a KG on our team. Ainge got it done.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

ok, Causeway...i agree that we DID have the pierces thanks to ainge...but let me ask you this...what happens with this team had KG and Allen not been available at this moment in time??? pierce would be gone and we would be even more terrible than we were last year...and KG/ALLEN dont come to boston if pierce isnt here, so the timing was perfect for ainge...is he not lucky that they were available this offseason and not next? we would be in the 6th year of our rebuilding plan and no end in sight...we HAD the pieces...thanks danny...but one cannot say that he didnt get lucky because 1) as stated before if minny was smart they could have had deng/chandler/aldridge for KG last year and we would not currently have him and 2) if seattle didnt get durant which statistically they shouldnt have then allen would not have been available either and we'd still be a 20 win team...ceridt for having the pieces, luck for the players that were on the market


----------



## BleedGreen

Danny deserves a lot of credit for the team he has put together so far. The thing that bothers me the most is that he could have easily held on to Delonte West and Ryan Gomes and both deals would have still gone through. Those players werent deal breakers and we would still have enough bench depth to compete heavily this season.


Ainge has this season to look at our team and next offseason to put together a title contender..and if he doesnt bring in the extra pieces then its just another failed attempt.


----------



## Causeway

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> ok, Causeway...i agree that we DID have the pierces thanks to ainge...


My new sig! 



> but let me ask you this...what happens with this team had KG and Allen not been available at this moment in time??? pierce would be gone and we would be even more terrible than we were last year...and KG/ALLEN dont come to boston if pierce isnt here, so the timing was perfect for ainge...is he not lucky that they were available this offseason and not next? we would be in the 6th year of our rebuilding plan and no end in sight...


Many things could of happened. We may of traded for other players (JO? Gasol?).



> we HAD the pieces...thanks danny...


Runner up for my new sig. 



> but one cannot say that he didnt get lucky because 1) as stated before if minny was smart they could have had deng/chandler/aldridge for KG last year and we would not currently have him and 2) if seattle didnt get durant which statistically they shouldnt have then allen would not have been available either and we'd still be a 20 win team...ceridt for having the pieces, luck for the players that were on the market


Again it's not luck, it's all in the prep work. Fortunate, but not luck. There are many teams and fans out there right now wishing their GM had put them in the place to pick up Ray and KG while holding onto their best asset. If it had been another team who did what we did, people would be bashing Ainge for missing the boat. He got it done, bottom line.


----------



## Causeway

This I is a circular debate that will not end. But the fact is if you give Ainge credit for putting the pieces in place to make the moves, you also have to give him credit for the trades. You do not have one without the other.


----------



## Causeway

more thanks to Ainge:



> once discussions resumed, the trade progressed surprisingly smoothly,* in large part because of conversations Garnett had with Ainge* and close friends and family.


----------



## BlakeJesus

Causeway said:


> more thanks to Ainge:


In large part because of Pierce and Allen, I highly doubt it would have really mattered who the coach was.


----------



## Truth34

I LOVE Luol Deng...and he could be an All-Star some day. But Jefferson is a 6'10" post player who WILL be an All-Star some day. There is no doubt that we were fortunate...but who ever thought Garnett would ever be traded? Danny had the foresight to make the gamble w/the Allen deal in the hopes he could convince Garnett to change. Just as you could bash him for other moves that didn't work out...you have to give him credit for these ones.

Now if we could just get PJ Brown....


----------



## E.H. Munro

BleedGreen said:


> Danny deserves a lot of credit for the team he has put together so far. The thing that bothers me the most is that he could have easily held on to Delonte West and Ryan Gomes and both deals would have still gone through. Those players werent deal breakers and we would still have enough bench depth to compete heavily this season.


Seattle demanded _something_ for eating Wally's contract. People tend to forget that Wally is about as popular as herpes sores at a swinger party. They originally wanted Rondo, and Ainge demanded Swift in that instance. If only to have a warm body that can get out of his own way I wish Seattle had given in on that account. As for Gomes, yes he was necessary. Boston traded the bare minimum salary necessary to meet the requirements of Garnett's salary (check it out if you don't believe me). I suppose they could have subbed out Powe and Ray, but apparently they think more of Powe (given how ambivalent the T'wolves are about Gomes).


----------



## BleedGreen

ehmunro said:


> Seattle demanded _something_ for eating Wally's contract. People tend to forget that Wally is about as popular as herpes sores at a swinger party. They originally wanted Rondo, and Ainge demanded Swift in that instance. If only to have a warm body that can get out of his own way I wish Seattle had given in on that account. As for Gomes, yes he was necessary. Boston traded the bare minimum salary necessary to meet the requirements of Garnett's salary (check it out if you don't believe me). I suppose they could have subbed out Powe and Ray, but apparently they think more of Powe (given how ambivalent the T'wolves are about Gomes).


I understand Ray Allen is an all star and a tremendous talent, and I like Danny's moves I just think he could have made them better. There was more than enough ways to make salary work considering Gomes made near the minimum. Any other contract could have made the same effect in the deal. McHale was not going to walk away from this deal if he didn't get Ryan Gomes. He would have been a great glue guy for us this year. He could backup the 3 and the 4. If we're going to go into the playoffs this year we cant depend on Powe and Big Baby. They will be solid role players eventually and maybe more for BBD, but not this year as they are still very young. Gomes gives us twice as much stability with him on the bench. I honestly felt like Gomes could have been a valuable part of our franchise for years to come. I think he could have started eventually as the stars retire.

Maybe Delonte had to be in there..but I dont see any reason why we couldn't have given them Pruitt and let the keep their pick.

If we had managed to keep Delonte and Ryan Gomes the House and Manuel signings would have been unnecessary and all Danny Ainge would have to do is get us a veteran center and our roster would be reasy for the season and the future.


----------



## E.H. Munro

Truth34 said:


> I LOVE Luol Deng...and he could be an All-Star some day. But Jefferson is a 6'10" post player who WILL be an All-Star some day.


Al Jefferson plays in the iron conference, the odds of him making an all star team in the foreseeable future are remote at best. Who of Timmeh, Dirk, Amare/Marion, Gasol, or Brand (who'll be out next year, but back in 2009) will he be beating out? This before addressing the fact that there are young prospects like LaMarcus Aldridge and Brandan Wright in the west, as well. He might not even be better than the second tier guys like Nene. In general, a player with an ineffectual post game whose post game represents his sole strength isn't destined for greatness. (Yes, ineffectual, despite the pretty moves he shies away from contact and does a very poor job of getting and converting free throws, which is why Eddie Curry's PP/FGA number is so much higher than Jeffersons). Right now he'd Eddy Curry with better rebounding and less effective offense.



Truth34 said:


> There is no doubt that we were fortunate...but who ever thought Garnett would ever be traded? Danny had the foresight to make the gamble w/the Allen deal in the hopes he could convince Garnett to change. Just as you could bash him for other moves that didn't work out...you have to give him credit for these ones.


What people find tiresome is the "master plan" nonsense you're claiming when it's pretty clear to everyone that what happened was that the franchise got screwed on May 22nd, Pierce (via his agent) made some vague threats about demanding a trade and then met with Wyc & Danny. And shortly thereafter the organisation made the decision to change direction and do whatever it took to find two more veteran running mates for Pierce in an attempt to win a title now (proving, once again, that Hoops Boston is the most influential basketball blog in Boston), because Boston attempted to finish the demolition job in 2005 (by trading Pierce for #3). At the end of four years they found themselves with a crappy team, and two trade assets, one of them the reward for having such a crappy team (the fifth pick). The reason for the "master plan" nonsense is that it obviates the need to explain away past ineptitude. ("Danny wasn't doing a crappy job, it was all part of a perfectly executed plan!!!")


----------



## E.H. Munro

BleedGreen said:


> I understand Ray Allen is an all star and a tremendous talent, and I like Danny's moves I just think he could have made them better. There was more than enough ways to make salary work considering Gomes made near the minimum. Any other contract could have made the same effect in the deal. McHale was not going to walk away from this deal if he didn't get Ryan Gomes. He would have been a great glue guy for us this year. He could backup the 3 and the 4. If we're going to go into the playoffs this year we cant depend on Powe and Big Baby. They will be solid role players eventually and maybe more for BBD, but not this year as they are still very young. Gomes gives us twice as much stability with him on the bench. I honestly felt like Gomes could have been a valuable part of our franchise for years to come. I think he could have started eventually as the stars retire.


Their choices with the Garnett deal were Gomes or Powe and Ray (and I mean literally, there was a sub-$2,000 margin). The _Celtics_ elected to keep Powe, meaning that they, at least, feel Powe's a better option going forward. Given Gomes' sense of entitlement and loafing on defense last year I'm not upset to see him go. I mean seriously, did no one tell him, "Hey, you're second round scrub on a ****ty team, shut your ****ing yapper and play ball."



BleedGreen said:


> Maybe Delonte had to be in there..but I dont see any reason why we couldn't have given them Pruitt and let the keep their pick.
> 
> If we had managed to keep Delonte and Ryan Gomes the House and Manuel signings would have been unnecessary and all Danny Ainge would have to do is get us a veteran center and our roster would be reasy for the season and the future.


Seattle didn't want another second round pick (they dealt away their other #2 as well). When they called Boston about trading the #5 pick, they were hoping for a simple Ray Allen for Ratliff/#5/filler deal. Boston didn't want to deal Ratliff, and subbed out Wallynoma instead. That necessitated another salary to even the salary balance. Telfair would have worked except that the Sonics probably weren't looking for a player they'd have to cut, Tony Allen was out due to the reconstructive knee surgery, Allan Ray was out because he didn't belong in the NBA. That left Rondo and West, and as they were the team eating a $25 million cancer, they wanted one of them. The Celtics were giving up West because they didn't want to give up Ratliff or Rondo (unless they were getting Allen and Swift). I am not going to mourn the loss of some scrub level players. Truth is that Gabe Pruitt will in all likelihood be better than West by 2009, and that the Celtics already have a better undersized PF on their roster than Gomes. At this point they need vets, and Gomes and West ain't the answer there.


----------



## Mateo

To the Ainge critics, what _would_ have been an acceptable rebuilding strategy in your minds? Keep in mind that you have to be reasonable; asking him to build the team into a title contender whilst still winning 45 games a year is not reasonable. Asking him to get the very best player available in each draft is not reasonable either.

It seems to me that failure and luck are both big parts of NBA success. I don't see anything to be ashamed about that this team was built in large part to them both.


----------



## E.H. Munro

Mateo said:


> To the Ainge critics, what _would_ have been an acceptable rebuilding strategy in your minds? Keep in mind that you have to be reasonable; asking him to build the team into a title contender whilst still winning 45 games a year is not reasonable. Asking him to get the very best player available in each draft is not reasonable either.
> 
> It seems to me that failure and luck are both big parts of NBA success. I don't see anything to be ashamed about that this team was built in large part to them both.


If the strident "AINGE IS GAWD!!!" crowd were saying "Sure, Danny made more mistakes than a Kennedy wife choosing to have children, but at least he redeemed himself," no one would care. But they aren't saying that, they're arguing that this was all some master plan, which it plainly wasn't. Basically Ainge just did what I suggested he should back on June 22nd. Why would I complain about him taking some good advice for once? :bsmile:


----------



## Causeway

GregOden said:


> In large part because of Pierce and Allen, I highly doubt it would have really mattered who the coach was.


What does the coach have to do with this? Ainge is the GM.


----------



## BlakeJesus

Causeway said:


> What does the coach have to do with this? Ainge is the GM.


You know what I meant.

What had the largest barring on the matter was Allen and Pierce being on the team. Ainge I'm positive wasn't the swaying factor.


----------



## Truth34

That's why he went out and got Ray Allen.

And both Seattle and Minnesota wanted Rondo. Personally, I'd take Rondo over Delonte. You don't really know what Seattle wanted, but if they wanted Ratliff, and Ainge instead gave them Wally, WHAT A MOVE!!! He kept a Garnett trading chip and got the guy that would help convince KG to change his mind.


----------



## E.H. Munro

Seattle approached Boston about #5, and were willing to trade Allen to get it. What we have here is the perfect storm of a summer. At least we were the beneficiaries for once.


----------



## ballocks

save for rajon, the celtics appear to have traded all of their future for ray allen and kevin garnett. i'm not saying that that was a bad move on their part, but it's still true. to give the mgmt team particular _credit_ today for bringing in those two names is to be shortsighted, imo. the celts had the young assets on their books to make the trades, that's true, but i think there are probably ~ a dozen other teams in the nba who could've also scored kevin garnett and ray allen had they been willing to part with _their_ future in the same way the celtics evidently were.

all that these two trades tell me is that the celtics were willing to mortgage the farm for the now, and i do applaud them for that. it's an awful mistake to swim in mediocrity if you have a chance to get out- either get terrible or get great, don't sit in the middle. but the fact that jesus and garnett were this available should tell you all you need to know about these trades from a celtics' perspective in the modern day and age: it wasn't as 'great' as bringing in two all-stars would normally imply. a significant price was paid for the future in order to vastly improve the now; as a result, imo, you can't judge this summer until enough time has passed to see what the alternatives would've (or could've) been. 

al jefferson doesn't mean much today, neither does gerald green, neither do those two picks, whereas KG and allen certainly do. but that's not a fair comparison yet, imo, it's apples and oranges. it's now vs the future, and obviously the now would look better since the future is (by definition) unknown. but it's not all about the now, nor is it all about the future. was it worthwhile for danny ainge to take on this risk? only time will tell. any judgment rendered today would be premature and unfair, imo.

peace


----------



## Avalanche

ballocks said:


> save for rajon, the celtics appear to have traded all of their future for ray allen and kevin garnett. i'm not saying that that was a bad move on their part, but it's still true. to give the mgmt team particular _credit_ today for bringing in those two names is to be shortsighted, imo. the celts had the young assets on their books to make the trades, that's true, but i think there are probably ~ a dozen other teams in the nba who could've also scored kevin garnett and ray allen had they been willing to part with _their_ future in the same way the celtics evidently were.


a dozen other teams that could have gotten them both?

honestly, name one.


----------



## Sixerfanforlife

Celtics basketball hinges alot on the perimeter shooting group. Ray Ray and Allen will obviously get theirs, and will allow KG to do his thing. But what about the guys that come off the bench? They need sharpshooters off the bench, guys who can spread the floor, but not only, they need to make plays. You have scrub pgs right now, your main priority is to find a way to move the ball without the need for an okay-to-good PG. Luckily for C Fans, Garnett has averaged about 4 APG numberous occasions in his career.


----------



## Avalanche

Sixerfanforlife said:


> Celtics basketball hinges alot on the perimeter shooting group. Ray Ray and Allen will obviously get theirs, and will allow KG to do his thing. But what about the guys that come off the bench? They need sharpshooters off the bench, guys who can spread the floor, but not only, they need to make plays. You have scrub pgs right now, your main priority is to find a way to move the ball without the need for an okay-to-good PG. Luckily for C Fans, Garnett has averaged about 4 APG numberous occasions in his career.


KG will be back to well over 5 apg this season i think, usually his numbers are much higher but recently he hasnt had anyone to assist the ball to regularly.

House was a start getting some shooters off the bench, he'll have a great 3 point percentage playing with these guys.
a big back up wing with some range would definately be handy though.


----------



## BlakeJesus

Avalanche said:


> a dozen other teams that could have gotten them both?
> 
> honestly, name one.


We've already been through this in this thread.

Name one? The Bulls.


----------



## Causeway

GregOden said:


> We've already been through this in this thread.
> 
> Name one? The Bulls.


The Bulls apparently had a shot at Garnett. They were not mentioned as being in the running for Ray Allen.


----------



## E.H. Munro

GregOden said:


> We've already been through this in this thread.
> 
> Name one? The Bulls.


The Bulls probably could have, but I doubt they'd have any interest in Ray Allen.


----------



## Avalanche

The bulls would have had to manage to re-sign PJ for some rediculous short term contract and packaged him with a stack of young guys just to get garnett.
neither re-building team is going to take on ben wallace so just to make up salary the bulls would have traded away just as many, possibly more players to get these 2 guys, leaving them really without even a starting 5.


----------



## E.H. Munro

Avalanche said:


> The bulls would have had to manage to re-sign PJ for some rediculous short term contract and packaged him with a stack of young guys just to get garnett.
> neither re-building team is going to take on ben wallace so just to make up salary the bulls would have traded away just as many, possibly more players to get these 2 guys, leaving them really without even a starting 5.


Ben Gordon, Mike Sweetney, Ty Thomas and P.J. Brown signed to an MLE deal would have been enough to make the salaries balance (for a Garnett trade).


----------



## Avalanche

ehmunro said:


> Ben Gordon, Mike Sweetney, Ty Thomas and P.J. Brown signed to an MLE deal would have been enough to make the salaries balance (for a Garnett trade).


we're talkin bout the same 23 odd million here right? i dont think a MLE deal would have been enough i thought it was around 8 mil they had to sign PJ for ( i could well be wrong though), not like any of it matters now anyway lol.

im surprised chicago isnt making a run at Jermaine at the moment actually


----------



## Truth34

Sorry, but none of those players is equal as a prospect to Al Jefferson.


----------



## E.H. Munro

Avalanche said:


> we're talkin bout the same 23 odd million here right? i dont think a MLE deal would have been enough i thought it was around 8 mil they had to sign PJ for ( i could well be wrong though), not like any of it matters now anyway lol.


It didn't have to equal $23 million, the Celtics certainly didn't trade that much. They dealt $18-$19 million. You challenged the ability of the Bulls to make the deal, they certainly could have.



Truth34 said:


> Sorry, but none of those players is equal as a prospect to Al Jefferson.


Not even Jefferson is equal as a prospect to Al Jefferson. Theoretically Chicago had the ninth pick in the draft to offer, and Ty, Bengo, #9 are, in total, far better than Jefferson.


----------



## Truth34

Uh....I don't think so. The package may be better in terms of the other players being better than Gomes, Green, et. al, but no one player in that deal approaches Jefferson's potential.


----------



## agoo

And how exactly would Chicago ever convince PJ Brown to sign for the MLE to get dealt to Minnesota?


----------



## E.H. Munro

agoo101284 said:


> And how exactly would Chicago ever convince PJ Brown to sign for the MLE to get dealt to Minnesota?


Hookers. 



Truth34 said:


> Uh....I don't think


So we've noticed.



Truth34 said:


> The package may be better in terms of the other players being better than Gomes, Green, et. al, but no one player in that deal approaches Jefferson's potential.


Al Jefferson doesn't approach Al Jefferson's "potential" either. He's a poor man's Zach Randolph. He isn't even within biking distance of being a franchise player, and three good supporting players are always better than one.


----------



## agoo

ehmunro said:


> Hookers.


There would have to be hundreds of them.


----------



## E.H. Munro

The other option would be to go slightly over the MLE, as P.J. isn't exactly rolling in offers.


----------



## agoo

I don't think PJ Brown is playing for the money right now.

Lets face it, Chicago no longer has the right contracts to go with the kids in a Garnett deal.


----------



## E.H. Munro

agoo101284 said:


> I don't think PJ Brown is playing for the money right now.


Sure he is, the reason he hasn't signed here is that he wants the full MLE. The T'wolves would only have traded him after anyways. The real issue with Paxson is always his bargain hunting, he hates to part with players he's drafted.


----------



## Causeway

Thanks Danny:




> "I think you could say 29 teams in the NBA today are looking at Boston and saying, `Wow, is that something they could have done and how much better are they going to be?'" Kupchak said.
> 
> "Cleary that's the deal of the offseason."


----------



## jokeaward

No, there weren't 12 other teams that could make the deal. It needed a guy like Ratliff who will expire, a no. 5 pick from a dreadful season, and a filler contract in Wally, plus young guys.

Not the best evidence of a great GM, and not what most GMs amass.


----------



## agoo

Would people be ripping Daniel more if someone else had pulled the KG deal? I'm not sure.


----------



## Premier

Ainge's last two trades were great. His other decisions [with some exceptions]? Not so much. I'll leave it at that.


----------



## E.H. Munro

agoo101284 said:


> Would people be ripping Daniel more if someone else had pulled the KG deal? I'm not sure.


Does it really qualify as "ripping Ainge" to laugh at the notion that he had some sort of master plan? (When the team has clearly had a few different directions over the course of the regime.)


----------



## HeaVINsent15

Well if you ask me I think he is the worst GM ever. The Celtics had a very bright future and he gave it all up so he could be a 2nd round team.


----------



## Causeway

--


----------



## mqtcelticsfan

HeaVINsent15 said:


> Well if you ask me I think he is the worst GM ever. The Celtics had a very bright future and he gave it all up so he could be a 2nd round team.


Let me say this loud and clear so I can stop reading how we had such a bright future... *We had a bunch of role players who were never going to help the Celtics win a title. We got rid of three players (Al, Gomes, West) who had ever proven anything at all (two of which, West and Gomes, have what appear to be low ceilings), a kid in Gerald Green, who has potential but is inept at defense and might have an IQ lower than his body temperature, the 5th pick, two huge contracts (Wally and Ratliff) who were nothing to the Celtics, and Telfair.* Where is this bright future? Big Al's future seems bright. Green *might *pull it together and be a very good scorer in the NBA. Gomes will be a decent guy off the bench, as will West. Telfair is useless. The 5th pick might have been good. Wally and Ratliff were just contracts.

The only bright spot where the Celtics were was Al Jefferson, the fifth pick, and possibly Gerald. We gained KG and Ray Allen, which makes our present team a heck of a lot better and puts Boston on the map. This was a great off-season for the Celtics, even if it was very lucky.


----------



## HeaVINsent15

So you think KG, Allen, and Peirce along with Rajon Rondo and Perkins starting and nothing but Leon Powe on the bench can win a title? Good luck!


----------



## CelticsRule

HeaVINsent15 said:


> So you think KG, Allen, and Peirce along with Rajon Rondo and Perkins starting and nothing but Leon Powe on the bench can win a title? Good luck!


And you honestly think Delonte West, Gerald Green, an old Paul Pierce, Ryan Gomes, and Al Jefferson would have? Come on, in my mind they only gave up one all star caliber player, two decent role players (Gomes and West) and a guy who I doubt will ever be more than a good dunker.


----------



## silverpaw1786

CelticsRule said:


> Come on, in my mind they only gave up one all star caliber player, two decent role players (Gomes and West) and a guy who I doubt will ever be more than a good dunker.


AMEN!


----------



## HeaVINsent15

CelticsRule said:


> And you honestly think Delonte West, Gerald Green, an old Paul Pierce, Ryan Gomes, and Al Jefferson would have? Come on, in my mind they only gave up one all star caliber player, two decent role players (Gomes and West) and a guy who I doubt will ever be more than a good dunker.


No but with that #5 pick and a few more years of sucking you would eventually have a great core. Now all your money is tied up in a trio of great players and ****.


----------



## aquaitious

HeaVINsent15 said:


> No but with that #5 pick and a few more years of sucking you would eventually have a great core. Now all your money is tied up in a trio of great players and ****.


As opposed to having Pierce, Szczerbiak, Jefferson and **** since we can't resign anyone?


----------



## P-Dub34

aquaitious said:


> As opposed to having Pierce, Szczerbiak, Jefferson and **** since we can't resign anyone?


If there's one thing we can all agree on in here it's that the trades made were the best moves that could've been made now. Not hoping for Jefferson to be Garnett with Wally as his sidekick.


----------



## Truth34

If Tony Allen can be ready to go by February, our "crap" bench is looking pretty good right now:

C Perk
PF Garnett
SF Pierce
SG Allen
PG Rondo

1 Tony Allen
2 Posey
3 Eddie House
4 Scalabrine
5 Leon Powe
6 Scot Pollard
7 Big Baby or Pruitt


----------



## P-Dub34

I wouldn't say "pretty good," but I wouldn't say "crap" either.


----------



## agoo

Truth34 said:


> If Tony Allen can be ready to go by February, our "crap" bench is looking pretty good right now:
> 
> C Perk
> PF Garnett
> SF Pierce
> SG Allen
> PG Rondo
> 
> 1 Tony Allen
> 2 Posey
> 3 Eddie House
> 4 Scalabrine
> 5 Leon Powe
> 6 Scot Pollard
> 7 Big Baby or Pruitt


Scalabrine is the fourth guy. Thats not "pretty good."

It does shape up to be a lot better than I had anticipated though.


----------



## Truth34

Well, Scalabrine was crap on a teenage team. But you can put him on the floor with these vets and he becomes vastly more valuable.


----------



## P-Dub34

At the end of the day he's still Brian Scalabrine, regardless of who he's playing with. Not a comforting thought.


----------



## Causeway

Scalabrine is Scalabrine. But I hear what Truth34 is saying. I think with the youth movement we needed, and expected too much of Scabs. With the current roster we get to make the most of him - which is a hustle scrappy player, makes little mistakes, does whatever role is asked of him, no complaints. No, he's not very talented, but he's a solid guy to have with our current team.


----------

