# Synopsis of Ainge's 1st 2 Years as GM



## Delontes Herpes

Here's what I think of each move Ainge has done so far for us.

Trades 

*Antoine Walker and Tony Delk for Raef Lafrentz, Chris Mills, Jiri Welsch, and a 1st rounder* 

Ugh...I never liked this trade. I know Danny didn't like 'Toine but we didn't have to pick up the injury prone Raef Lafrentz and his 19 year $300 million contract to dump him. Antoine only had 2 years left, we should have been able to get an expiring deal and a #1. Mills, Welsch, and the 1st rounder don't quite make up for taking on Lafrentz's mammoth deal. It was a miracle he played a full season effectively this year...*D+*

*Eric Williams, Tony Battie, and Kedrick Brown for Yogi Stewart, Chris Mihm, and Ricky Davis* 

I loved this trade when it happened, and I love it even more now. That is a whole lotta nothing for a whole lotta something. Ricky has proven to be quite the player, especially for just an MLE. And IIRC, we have him locked up for 3 more years. Mihm made himself useful in the LA trade, and Yogi's expiring contract was helpful later...*A+*

*Mike James and Chris Mills for Chucky Atkins, Lindsay Hunter and a #1* 
We didn't give up anything of much value and we picked up a 1st rounder. We did have to take on chucky's contract but it proved to be quite tradeable...*A-*

*Chucky Atkins, Chris Mihm, and Jumaine Jones for Gary Payton, Rick Fox, and a #1* 

I splooged my pants when I heard about this trade. Mihm and Atkins were byproducts of other trades, Jumaine Jones was a cheap and bad signing, and we were able to get a year rental out of GP plus a future #1 (if LA keeps going the way they are, this could be very valuable in the future...an injury to Kobe one year and you never know...Greg Oden anyone?). From a different standpoint, Mihm was gone anyway and we were able to upgrade at PG for a shorter deal and pick up a #1. And the kids loved GP...I think he may have had a greater impact on their development than people realize...*A*

*Jiri Welsch for a 2007 1st rounder* 

I would have traded Jiri for a bag of balls, yet Ainge somehow convinced Cleveland that the douchebag was worth a 1st rounder...I love it...*A+*

*Yogi Stewart, Tom Gugliotta, Gary Payton, and a 1st rounder for Antoine Walker* 

The fact that we got Payton back makes this trade awesome. Yogi and Googs were no loss. Antoine made us a better team and even if he is done being a Celtic he still can bring back value via a sign and trade. And if LA gets a top 10 draft pick next year, the Hawks will get the worst first rounder between us, cleveland, and LA in 2007. There is potential that Danny will essentially have traded jiri freakin welsch for toine AND advanced draft position in 2007. that is freakin brilliant...*A-*

Drafts 

*Marcus Banks- 13th overall*- I wasn't a fan of the pick then, I still am not a fan now. He has potential but still has much to prove. Right now Luke Ridnour who went a pick later is looking like the much better selection. However, it could be worse...Reece Gaines did go 2 picks later...*C+*

*Kendrick Perkins- 27th overall*- I liked this pick when Danny made it, and I still like it now. They took a gamble on a project who could prove to be the longterm solution at C. You can't find a lock to be the longterm solution to C outside of pick #1 so you gotta gamble now and then. So far it looks like there's a chance that Perk is going to be the answer in a few years...*A-*

*Al Jefferson- 15th pick overall*- Right now this looks like it may be the steal of the draft. I've heard all good things about Big Al's work ethic, and it seems like he's been saying all the right things. He has potential to be a beast on offense and the first true low post for the celtics in quite some time...*A*

*Delonte West- 24th overall* - Delonte has good savvy, a good shot, doesn't turn the ball over and is a decent passer. However, he seems to have a fairly low ceiling and I don't think he'll ever be an all star. But at the same time there weren't many other great options at 24...*B-*

*Tony Allen* 25th overall- This guy was another steal...showed a lot of good things in his rookie year and I think he's poised for a mini-breakout next year...something like 27 mins 11 points 5 rebs 2 assts and solid D. And he'll only get better from there...*A*

significant signings 

*Mark Blount- 6 years @ $38 mil* - I know this looks like a pretty bad signing now, but at the time it was necessary. He had a blatant contract year push, but we needed a body at C (remember, our other big men options were ernest brown, walter, raef, googs, perk, and AJ...not a single one of them a lock to be worthy of 20+ minutes) and i believe smart teams such as miami and indiana were also in pursue of Mr Blount. Ainge wasn't able to land Etan Thomas so he had to settle for his 2nd option. And Blount's contract is more moveable than it seems...*C+*

*Hiring Doc Rivers* - Not the best game coach, but let's face it this wasn't the easiest team to deal with. He had a bunch of young guys, some big egos (ricky, pierce, payton, walker), and mark blount to put up with. That is no walk in the park. Plus he had this team finally running. I'm willing to cut him some slack and give him another year or 2 before I start hating on him...*B-*

Overall 

Danny seems to have a good eye for talent and he knows who to trade with, as he has been consistently getting the better end of trades since screwing up initially with Antoine. His biggest noticeable flaw is that he seems to overvalue a lot of his draft picks. However, this is not as bad as undervaluing your players (read: trading pierce for garbage). I also am not sure if he can pick a plan and stick to it, but that remains to be seen. The next 2-3 years will be a good indicator of exactly how good Ainge is. I'll give him a B+ for what he's done so far.


----------



## ZWW

Delontes Herpes said:


> *Jiri Welsch for a 2007 1st rounder*
> 
> I would have traded Jiri for a bag of balls, yet Ainge somehow convinced Cleveland that the douchebag was worth a 1st rounder...I love it...*A+*


 :laugh: That was hilarious Mr. Herpes.


----------



## ZWW

I agree with all the trade analysis, but would've given Banks a little better grade and lowered Blount's grade.

Good synopsis. :clap:


----------



## BackwoodsBum

Heres's my assessment of the deals:

Deal 1) I wasn't a Walker fan and I hoped Raef would play like he did in his Denver days so I was actually hopefull that this would be a good deal. T the time Walker's trade value was pretty low so there weren't lot of options. Even though Raef had a decent year last year and I still think Welsch could be a good player in the right system, in hindsight the best thing about this deal was that it gave us pieces to use in some of the other trades. *C* 

Deal 2) Tony Battie was serviceable, but expendable. Kedrick Brown was garbage. I like the hustle and heart of Eric Williams and he was the only player on the team with a true low post arsenal, but he was wasted under Obie's system so he was expendable too. Getting Ricky without giving up major players was a stroke of genius! He was a major part of the success of the team this year and his trade value has gone off the scale should DA decide to move him. I liked Mihm and would prefer to have kept Mihm over Blount any day, but he proved valuable in a trade as did Stewart's contract. *DA's best move to date...A+* 

Deal 3) James and Atkins were pretty much an even swap in my book, Mills and Hunter were cap fodder, so DA pretty much got a free 1st round pick. *Nice move! A* 

Deal 4) Like I said, I would have prefered to keep Mihm around, but they believed Blount was more than a contract year wonder (we now know otherwise) and swapping Atkins for Payton was a big part of the reason that Banks was able to develop as much as he did this year. I also think that the LA 1st rounder will be a good pick because Kobe's attitude has pretty much killed that team. *If we had given up Blount in a sign and trade and kept Mihm, A+...as it was A-* 

Deal 5) Like I said, I still think Welsch could be a servicable player in the right system, but his confidence was shot and we were loaded at the swing position so he was expendable. I thought this was for a second rounder and not a first though. If it is a first then it's not a bad trade, if it's for a second I would rather have seen if there was more available. *C* 

Deal 6) At first I didn't want Walker back, but he played well at the end of the regular season and put a lot of heart back into this team. In the end the only thing of value we gave up was what should be a failry low first round pick and got Walker (and Payton came back) for the stretch run. Since I expect both to be gone before next season, we gave up a first rounder to rent a couple of players for a couple of months. Not a bad deal since we had picks to spare and an generous supply of young players so the pick wasn't that important, but if we were going to rent players for the stretch run that run shouldn't have ended the way it did. *C* 

Draft Picks

Marcus Banks - there are other players I would have preferred at this position (such as Ridenour) but after a year of learning behind Payton, Banks is showing flashes of being more than just a defensive prodigy (which was the only thing I would have given him credit for earlier in the year). *C+ with potential to be a solid B* 

Kendrick Perkins - I liked this pick at the time and still do. Perkins is a beast that should be the first true center the C's have had since the Chief. Nice hands (especially when compared to stone-hands Blount!), looks to outlet the ball as soon as he rebounds it, and an imposing presence inside. Better offensively than he gets credit for. This low in the first round he was steal! *A* 

Al Jefferson - I said before the draft that I had a gut feeling he would be a monster in the NBA. After watching him this year I still feel that way. I've seen a lot of comparisons to Moses Malone and Karl Malone and if he turns out to be that good he will be the steal of the draft. As a rookie straight out of high school he showed that he is the best offensive inside player we've had since McHale and with his work ethic he should improve with experience. *A+* 

Delonte West - I wasn't real happy with this pick at the time, and I don't think he'll ever be an all-start caliber player, but he has great instincts and a nice shooting touch. He could be a nice bench player for a number of years. *B* 

Tony Allen - Another pick that I didn't really like at the time, but other than slipping a little at the end of the year (rookie wall???) he played great and could develop into a defensive stopper. He's a great rebounder for his size, and can finish on the break. He could flourish in a true fast break offense. His outside shot wasn't as bad as I had heard but still needs work. Like West, I don't see him as a potential all-star, but he could be a key component of the team for a number of years *B+* 

Other Moves

Mark Blount - My disgust with and total lack of respect for this piece of garbage is beyond words (or at least words that won't get censored here!) With all the emotion and hustle he shows they could dresss him up like an indian and stick him in front of a cigar store and people wouls say he didn't look lifelike enough for the job. A total waste of 7 feet of body that could have been put to good use by someone who cared. The water boy should be payed more because he contributes more to the team. I think you get my point  *F- - * 

Doc Rivers - A decent job of keeping the team together with all the distractions. Payton and Davis have always been known as hard to coach, and Pierce turned out to be worse than either of them and was a spoiled brat most of the year, but somehow Doc kept the team together most of the year. That deserves a lot of considerations in my book. Unfortunately his game management and substitution patterns made me want you pull my hair out all year long. Compared to his predecessor (Obie) he's the second coming of Adolph Rupp, but I would have preferred to see the C's pursue Paul Silas when he was available at the end of 2003 or seen them hire Dave Cowans (who was rumored to be among the final choices when Doc was hired). I think he deserves another year to prove himself, but if he continues to be outcoached in close games I'd investigate the options availble at the end of the year.
*C* 

Non-Moves that should have happened

Going into the 2003 Season several teams were rumored to have inquired about Pierce's availability at a time when his trade value was very high. He stayed with the C's and played like a selfish punk all year. Again last offseason there were teams inquiring about him (thought his trade value had dropped) and some of the rumored deals would have really been great trades from the C's standpoint (the Pierce for Marion deal would have been a dream!). Again he was not traded and again he sulked most of the year. He had a couple of games where he showed what he could do when he gave his full effort, but there were several games where he hurt the team much more than he helped it. Now his trade value is even lower and it will be hard to move him for anything of value. *F* 

Overall I think Ainge has shown that he is a good judge of young talent and most of his additions have been positive ones. He has brought in guys that could conceivably play important rolse for years to come. I think ownership meddling in the decisions are the reason why Blount was re-signed, Pierce was not traded, and Walker returned. If that's the case I can't hold that against Ainge. The signing of Doc Rivers apparently was Ainge's decision and wasn't too bad though I would have preferred some others. All in all I give him a *B*


----------



## Delontes Herpes

thanks for the props zww.

backwoods- it was for a 2007 1st rounder. we traded walter for a 2nd rounder, which i forgot to mention because it's so trivial.

i know everyone loves to hate on blount but he gave us over 2000 minutes at C this year. that alone gives him some reasonable value. plus, i think the contract is much more moveable than people think. apparently, they're going to try like hell to trade him this offseason, we'll see how that goes. and as long as we're paying vinny baker, raef, and pierce, we weren't going to be signing any big name FA's anyway.

as for pierce we'll just have to agree to disagree on him. maybe we could have traded him for marion which would have been nice, maybe phoenix backed out, or maybe it was just an unsubstantiated rumor. although i do think that his trade value is just as high now as it was 2 years ago...he just had his most statistically efficient year of his career.


----------



## whiterhino

Delontes Herpes said:


> *Chucky Atkins, Chris Mihm, and Jumaine Jones for Gary Payton, Rick Fox, and a #1*
> 
> I splooged my pants when I heard about this trade. Mihm and Atkins were byproducts of other trades, Jumaine Jones was a cheap and bad signing, and we were able to get a year rental out of GP plus a future #1 (if LA keeps going the way they are, this could be very valuable in the future...an injury to Kobe one year and you never know...Greg Oden anyone?). From a different standpoint, Mihm was gone anyway and we were able to upgrade at PG for a shorter deal and pick up a #1. And the kids loved GP...I think he may have had a greater impact on their development than people realize...*A*


Jumaine Jones wasn't a cheap signing, he was part of a trade. We traded JR Bremer to Cleveland for Jones. Jones never got rolling in Boston but he was probably better than Bremer so it was ok. But that was a Danny trade that you missed. There was another Danny trade you missed as well. Boston trades the rights to Darius Songalia to Sacremento for 2 2nd rounders. I would have rather kept Songalia on that deal, he's pretty good. The 2nd we got already was Brandon Hunter who is on the Magic now. The other we don't have yet. 
Other than that, I'd give Banks a higher grade. I love Ridnour too but I also think Banks will be good and I'd rather have him than other guys chosen ahead of him like Jarvis Hayes or Mike Sweetney.
I'd give the Blount signing an F. I was always against signing Blount. He is NOT a starting C in this league. 
I'd give Doc a B.
Delonte would get a D from me, I'd much rather have Udrih.
TA would only get a C+/B- from me.


----------



## Delontes Herpes

yeah, i forgot about a lot of the smaller moves that he made earlier and i just skipped over the really small things like 2nd round picks...in retrospect we probably should have kept songaila. he had a pretty good year with sacto. i understand all of your other grades, but why only a C+/B- for TA? he had a rock solid rookie year for pick #25 and not many people were picked after him did anything at all.

blount is not a starting C, but he is a decent backup. btw, here's a list of guys who signed for similar money to blount last summer

Troy Hudson
Derek Fisher
Marquis Daniels
Stephen Jackson
Vlade Divac
Brian Cardinal
Brian Skinner
Hedo Turkoglu
Rafer Alston
Etan Thomas
Mark Blount
Brent Barry
Antonio McDyess
Adonal Foyle

I'm not going to rank blount among them but the point is, an MLE doesn't buy you as much as you'd think. we'll be able to better judge this signing when we see what ainge can do to trade blount.


----------



## whiterhino

Delontes Herpes said:


> yeah, i forgot about a lot of the smaller moves that he made earlier and i just skipped over the really small things like 2nd round picks...in retrospect we probably should have kept songaila. he had a pretty good year with sacto. i understand all of your other grades, but why only a C+/B- for TA? he had a rock solid rookie year for pick #25 and not many people were picked after him did anything at all.
> 
> blount is not a starting C, but he is a decent backup. btw, here's a list of guys who signed for similar money to blount last summer
> 
> Troy Hudson
> Derek Fisher
> Marquis Daniels
> Stephen Jackson
> Vlade Divac
> Brian Cardinal
> Brian Skinner
> Hedo Turkoglu
> Rafer Alston
> Etan Thomas
> Mark Blount
> Brent Barry
> Antonio McDyess
> Adonal Foyle
> 
> I'm not going to rank blount among them but the point is, an MLE doesn't buy you as much as you'd think. we'll be able to better judge this signing when we see what ainge can do to trade blount.


Right, I don't expect a star for the MLE but I'd rather have most of the guys on that list than Blount.
I would have given TA an A for the first half of the season but the 2nd half is what brought him down for me. He's a good defender. His shot is terrible. He can fly like not to many others in the league. My major dissapointment with him the 2nd half was his attitude and immaturity. He'd get a bad call or 2 against him and get completely rattled. He'd let the other team take him completely off his game. That bothers me. It also bothered me that he acted so cocky as a rookie, making a shot and then handing the ball to the guy, I mean as a rookie you don't do that. He needs to grow up quite a bit, if he does I think he'll be very solid but that's why his grade was so low from me. As for guys drafted after him other than Udrih who I love I liked Verejo and Duhon, but you are right there were not a ton of great players taken after him.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

ZWW said:


> :laugh: That was hilarious Mr. Herpes.




Mr. Herpes....lololol that just sounds way too funny


----------



## Truth34

I think the first Walker trade deserves a B.

Look, you get LaFrentz who is getting paid less than Walker by about 4 million and is as effective on the court as Walker. You get Chris Mills, who becomes Tony Allen. You get the pick that gets us Delonte West. And you get Jiri. 

So essentially, you trade Antoine for:

LaFrentz
Tony Allen 
Delonte West
and a future #1 pick


I'm sorry, but Antoine isn't worth all of that. I'd give that trade a B+.


----------



## Premier

Why take on Raef's contract when Antoine expires in two years _and is the best player in the deal_? Tony Allen isn't going to be better than Antoine is/was. Same applies for Delonte West, but to include _both_ of them while arguing the first deal is wrong. Sure, we got Chris Mills, but was Ainge planning on acquiring Detroit's pick by trading him to Atlanta at the time of the original deal? I'm sorry, but you cannot judge the first Walker trade by the lucky transactions Ainge made later on. This first deal was horrible, but from that point on, Ainge has been terrific.


----------



## Delontes Herpes

you get stuck with lafrentz's 6 year albatross contract though. that's what makes it a bad deal.


----------



## whiterhino

Delontes Herpes said:



> you get stuck with lafrentz's 6 year albatross contract though. that's what makes it a bad deal.


That is what kills this deal, that freaking contract, not Raef himself.


----------



## Delontes Herpes

premier beat me to it with a better explanation of why the trade sucked


----------



## Premier

whiterhino said:


> That is what kills this deal, that freaking contract, not Raef himself.


If Raef had a two year contract, much like Antoine's, I still wouldn't have done the deal.


----------



## Causeway

Truth34 said:


> I think the first Walker trade deserves a B.
> 
> Look, you get LaFrentz who is getting paid less than Walker by about 4 million and is as effective on the court as Walker. You get Chris Mills, who becomes Tony Allen. You get the pick that gets us Delonte West. And you get Jiri.
> 
> So essentially, you trade Antoine for:
> 
> LaFrentz
> Tony Allen
> Delonte West
> and a future #1 pick
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but Antoine isn't worth all of that. I'd give that trade a B+.


That was a fantastic trade. Easily an A. People keep talking about Raefs contract. So what? Are you paying it? If he was making less what would that mean - that we'd be under the cap? And what would that do for us? Nothing. Raef was great this season. Great.

Add Tony Allen, Delonte West AND a future #1 pick and that trade is amazing. The only issue I have with it is that we let Walker back in. However that was only for about a quarter of a season and hopefully Danny will pull off a nice sign-and-trade with Walker.


----------



## Delontes Herpes

raef was great this season? i guess we have different definitions of great. he's had 1 decent season out of 6. we'll see what he does in the other 4 before saying that it was worth it to take on his deal.

and we aren't the f'in knicks...it's not wyc is willing to spend infinity over the cap...there are limits to how much the owners will put into payroll, and raef cuts into the budget significantly.

tony allen should be a decent player but you won't ever see him on any MVP ballots
delonte west has proven nothing.
that future 1st rounder is what? a 4 year investment? and it's just a mid-late 1st rounder, nothing amazingly special.

and as premier said, this deal is mitigated by the great deals danny made after this one. who would have known that we would turn chris mills, mike james, and jiri welsch into 2 future 1st rounders?


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

Causeway said:


> People keep talking about Raefs contract. So what? Are you paying it? If he was making less what would that mean - that we'd be under the cap? And what would that do for us? Nothing. Raef was great this season. Great.



HAHAHAHA...GREAT?! 10 pts and 6 rebs a game is great?!?! hahahahah...and o yea so what about his contract...this comin from someone who slams walker every chance he gets yet raef is great and it doesnt matter how much u pay him...but dont give walker more than 5 bux...hahaha what a ridiculous statement....raef was great...hahahaha


----------



## Causeway

Delontes Herpes said:


> raef was great this season? i guess we have different definitions of great. he's had 1 decent season out of 6. we'll see what he does in the other 4 before saying that it was worth it to take on his deal.
> 
> and we aren't the f'in knicks...it's not wyc is willing to spend infinity over the cap...there are limits to how much the owners will put into payroll, and raef cuts into the budget significantly.
> 
> tony allen should be a decent player but you won't ever see him on any MVP ballots
> delonte west has proven nothing.
> that future 1st rounder is what? a 4 year investment? and it's just a mid-late 1st rounder, nothing amazingly special.
> 
> and as premier said, this deal is mitigated by the great deals danny made after this one. who would have known that we would turn chris mills, mike james, and jiri welsch into 2 future 1st rounders?


First of all I believe Danny has and had a plan. And it was not an accicent that Ainge turned chris mills, mike james, and jiri welsch into 2 future 1st rounders. It happened and it's a fact.

Yes there are limits but again Raef had a great season for Boston. Not just his numbers - which were nice. But his shooting ability spread the floor very nicely among other things. Do I love the contract? No. But I can live with it. In addition - I was thrilled to see Walker walk out the door. I am sure if Ainge could have done better he would have. But the net result of that trade counts. And the net result is great.



> tony allen should be a decent player but you won't ever see him on any MVP ballots


Who is talking about MVP's? Was Walker ever even close to an MVP? I don't understand this point. Allen should be more than decent.


----------



## Premier

Causeway said:


> That was a fantastic trade. Easily an A. People keep talking about Raefs contract. So what? Are you paying it? If he was making less what would that mean - that we'd be under the cap? And what would that do for us? Nothing. Raef was great this season. Great.


Do I really have to argue this? 

Why talk about Raef's contract? How about because LaFrentz's contract disallows us from having _any _chance at landing solid role-players who can match his production for half the price. We would also be more a more functional trading partner because we can take on more money and still remain under the luxury tax, which Wyc and crew are reluctant to pay. Also, we could "buy" draft picks and throw in cash to even out a deal that was in our favor (which potentially really improves our roster). _What if _(yes, I know it's cliche) we were after a free agent that would dramatically help us, but someone matched our bid (and according to you, _*no*_ free agent would sign with us if some other team was offering more money. The cold weather arguement, which is just plain silly...). If we were able to throw more money at that said player, we would improve our chances at signing that player.

... Your argument is redundant. There is a reason why the Knicks do not suceed. Overpaying players limits your chances at signing _better _players.



> Add Tony Allen, Delonte West AND a future #1 pick and that trade is amazing.


Again, you can only include Delonte West (actually, in theory, you cannot include him. It would just be a first-rounder) Anything other than Jiri Welsch, Chris Mills... is illogical as explained by me above.

I'm done.


----------



## Premier

Damn, Delonte... I just repeated what you said.


----------



## Premier

Causeway said:


> First of all I believe Danny has and had a plan. And it was not an accicent that Ainge turned chris mills, mike james, and jiri welsch into 2 future 1st rounders. It happened and it's a fact.


Then why didn't the Pistons (and Hawks) and the Cavs trade with us immediately after the original Antoine trade? This is pure speculation.

...



> Who is talking about MVP's? Was Walker ever even close to an MVP? I don't understand this point. Allen should be more than decent.


Antoine Walker is easily better than everyone mentioned in this trade.


----------



## Causeway

Premier said:


> Do I really have to argue this?
> Again, you can only include Delonte West (actually, in theory, you cannot include him. It would just be a first-rounder) Anything other than Jiri Welsch, Chris Mills... is illogical as explained by me above.
> 
> I'm done.


Sorry you find it illogical. And I saw your explination. But you are wrong. The net result counts. I belive Danny had a plan when he made the trade. And that plan panned out very nicely. Was it perfect? No. Would it be better if Raef made less? Yes. But generral trades work that way. People keep saying the Lakers could/should have gotten more for Shaq. Who knows what was on the table. 

I say you can and should include all of the above and it is logical as explained by me above.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

Premier said:


> Antoine Walker is easily better than everyone mentioned in this trade.




EASILY...just thoguht id emphasize that for u premier...lol


----------



## Premier

How is it logical? It even doesn't fall in syllogistics (the lowest form of logic, disproved a countless number of times). 

"Danny had a plan"

Do you know him? And even if you do, how do you know he wouldn't be lying. Until proven otherwise, you cannot assume Danny made that trade with prior knowledge of the future trades that occured _months_ after it.


----------



## Causeway

Better what? Better volume shooter? Better at not getting to the line? Better at killing fast breaks by chucking up a three?

Yes - he has more talent. But again he's a knucklehead and does not use his talent well.


----------



## Premier

No, he's better at leading this team. Better at getting every offensive rebound (or atleast majorly contributing to the team by boxing out two defenders allowing Tony Allen to fly in for the put-back slam). Better at _leading _fast breaks by beating everyone down the floor. Better by hitting the clutch shot when we need it. Better by motivating the best player on the team. Better by directing the offense. Better by seeing the perfect pass as well as most point guards...

Fragment: Consider Revising...


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

Premier said:


> No, he's better at leading this team. Better at getting every offensive rebound (or atleast majorly contributing to the team by boxing out two defenders allowing Tony Allen to fly in for the put-back slam). Better at _leading _fast breaks by beating everyone down the floor. Better by hitting the clutch shot when we need it. Better by motivating the best player on the team. Better by directing the offense. Better by seeing the perfect pass as well as most point guards...


o forget all of that...raef was great and walker hurts the team so much that he should be traded for a bag of peanuts  


great post priemier i agree 110%


----------



## Delontes Herpes

raef's knees could give in at any moment now. for all we know he could end up playing in just 20 games over the next 4 years. he exceeded expectations this year simply by not getting hurt. just because he played one full season there is no reason to expect 75-80 games @ 27 minutes a game from him over each of the next 4.


----------



## Causeway

> No, he's better at leading this team.



Leading the team to what? First round playoff exits.



> Better at getting every offensive rebound


Offensive rebounds? He IS good at that. Unfortunately there are 2 problems. One is that he's not under the boards enough where he should be. The other is that many of his O rebounds come because he has such a crappy shot. And he takes a lot of them. He missis layups and gets his own rebound. How about trying to make it the first time?



> Better at _leading _fast breaks by beating everyone down the floor.


He leads fast breaks - yet he won't give up the ball. Fast breaks are not about beating your guy down the floor. The ball is faster. Pass it.



> Better by hitting the clutch shot when we need it.


What clutch shots? And if he has hit them many times it's his poor shooting before that puts us in a place of needing a big shot.



> Better by motivating the best player on the team.


Motivating him to almost cost us a playoff game? Pierce happened to be an allstar when Walker was gone. He does fine without AW.



> Better by directing the offense. Better by seeing the perfect pass as well as most point guards...


Big over statement. He dribbles too much and holds the ball too much. I'd rathed see the ball in his hands less. He should stay under the boards. But he does not want to do that.


----------



## Causeway

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> o forget all of that...raef was great and walker hurts the team so much that he should be traded for a bag of peanuts


Here is the BIG difference between Walker and Raef. It's not talent. Walker wins there no doubt. It's that Raef knows what he is good at an plays to those stregnths. Walker does not. If Walker would just stick to what he does well he'd be decent. But his ego or whatever requires that he shoot 20 times a game (never mind that he does not get to the line on those 20 shots). It takes more than talent. It takes brains.


----------



## Causeway

Delontes Herpes said:


> raef's knees could give in at any moment now. for all we know he could end up playing in just 20 games over the next 4 years. he exceeded expectations this year simply by not getting hurt. just because he played one full season there is no reason to expect 75-80 games @ 27 minutes a game from him over each of the next 4.


From all reports his knees are fine. Yes who knows. But who knows about anybody. It was a nice trade by Danny.


----------



## Premier

Causeway said:


> Leading the team to what? First round playoff exits.


No, better at leading his team to Eastern Conference Championships. If you really want to base your opinion on one playoff series only twenty-four games after he was back (with no time to train for Doc's system, the luxury enjoyed by every other Celtic), go right ahead, although I doubt you will be taken seriously when that sample size pales in comparison to Antoine's career with the Celtics (even his playoff career).



> Offensive rebounds? He IS good at that. Unfortunately there are 2 problems. One is that he's not under the boards enough where he should be. The other is that many of his O rebounds come because he has such a crappy shot. And he takes a lot of them. He missis layups and gets his own rebound. How about trying to make it the first time?


No, Antoine is *always *under the boards after a shot (unless it is a long rebound from a three-point shot). He gets most of his offensive rebounds from his teammates misses from mid-range jumpers. By getting the offensive rebound (and even missing the put-back), he is keeping the ball alive, something Raef isn't able to do.



> He leads fast breaks - yet he won't give up the ball. Fast breaks are not about beating your guy down the floor. The ball is faster. Pass it.


Again, you're basing this statement on *one play* out of thousands that Antoine was involved in. So what he didn't pass it to Delonte on that fastbreak. I wouldn't trust him with a layup (although I wouldn't trust Antoine either).



> What clutch shots? And if he has hit them many times it's his poor shooting before that puts us in a place of needing a big shot.


Los Angeles about three-four years back. Buzzer beater to essentially win the game. Also, he has made a lot of shot when the Celtics were in trouble (with no momentum on their side).



> Motivating him to almost cost us a playoff game? Pierce happened to be an allstar when Walker was gone. He does fine without AW.


Pierce also had his worse season without Antoine. No, motivating him to ensure our title as the team that had the greatest comeback in NBA playoff history.




> Big over statement. He dribbles too much and holds the ball too much. I'd rathed see the ball in his hands less. He should stay under the boards. But he does not want to do that.


He's our best point guard. Is that even questionable?


----------



## Premier

Causeway said:


> Here is the BIG difference between Walker and Raef. It's not talent. Walker wins there no doubt. It's that Raef knows what he is good at an plays to those stregnths. Walker does not. If Walker would just stick to what he does well he'd be decent. But his ego or whatever requires that he shoot 20 times a game (never mind that he does not get to the line on those 20 shots). It takes more than talent. It takes brains.


Wrong. What makes Antoine special is that he is a decent perimter player and a even better post player. Blame the coaches that implanted his offensive style, not him.

Also, 18.5 shots per game...4.4 free throw attempts.


----------



## Causeway

> No, better at leading his team to Eastern Conference Championships. If you really want to base your opinion on one playoff series only twenty-four games after he was back (with no time to train for Doc's system, the luxury enjoyed by every other Celtic), go right ahead, although I doubt you will be taken seriously when that sample size pales in comparison to Antoine's career with the Celtics (even his playoff career).


Yes that team got to the ECF. But that has already been discussed in here. The East was as weak as it's ever been at that point so while on paper the ECF looks good - it really was not that impressive. In addition the team we beat got destroyed in the finals.



> Again, you're basing this statement on one play out of thousands that Antoine was involved in. So what he didn't pass it to Delonte on that fastbreak. I wouldn't trust him with a layup (although I wouldn't trust Antoine either).





> Los Angeles about three-four years back. Buzzer beater to essentially win the game. Also, he has made a lot of shot when the Celtics were in trouble (with no momentum on their side).


So you can base an argument on one clutch shot from 3 or 4 years back - but I can't bring up something from THIS SEASON? Go ahead and do that but I doubt you'll be taken seriously in here.

And I was not talking about one play. There are MANY plays where Walker kills a fast break by holding the ball and running it up.



> He's our best point guard. Is that even questionable?


By me it is. Walker should be under the boards not trying to play PG.


----------



## Causeway

Premier said:


> Wrong. What makes Antoine special is that he is a decent perimter player and a even better post player. Blame the coaches that implanted his offensive style, not him.


The excuses with Walker are impressive. So the blame for Walkers warts fall on all of his NBA coaches? And he has had many.


----------



## LX

Best trade...getting rid of Walker.
Worst Trade...getting Walker back.

:biggrin: Yea go eat some peanuts premier :banana:


----------



## Premier

Causeway said:


> Yes that team got to the ECF. But that has already been discussed in here. The East was as weak as it's ever been at that point so while on paper the ECF looks good - it really was not that impressive. In addition the team we beat got destroyed in the finals.


Relative to the other Eastern conference playoff teams, we were about the same (or worse) in terms of talent. To come off on top in three out of five series' (in two years) is remarkable, if you ask me. Not every team goes to the finals, and I have come to accept that. If you expect nothing, you will always be happily surprised.




> So you can base an argument on one clutch shot from 3 or 4 years back - but I can't bring up something from THIS SEASON? Go ahead and do that but I doubt you'll be taken seriously in here.


No, I was simply answering your quote:




> What clutch shots? And if he has hit them many times it's his poor shooting before that puts us in a place of needing a big shot.


Also, I included a statement that expanded my opinion on this subject, unlike you, when I stated that the sample size of one play is not enough to accurately form an assessment on a player.




> And I was not talking about one play. There are MANY plays where Walker kills a fast break by holding the ball and running it up.


There are much more plays where Antoine created the fast-break for us and we successfully converted the play into two (or even more) points.


----------



## Premier

Lanteri said:


> Best trade...getting rid of Walker.
> Worst Trade...getting Walker back.
> 
> :biggrin: Yea go eat some peanuts premier :banana:


So...how are the Titans doing?

:clown:


----------



## LX

Premier said:


> So...how are the Titans doing?
> 
> :clown:


That's low. :curse:


----------



## Premier

Causeway said:


> The excuses with Walker are impressive. So the blame for Walkers warts fall on all of his NBA coaches? And he has had many.


Let's see:

* Rick Pitino *coached Antoine during his collegiate career in Kentucky. Pitino is easily recognized as a coach who favors three-point shots. *Jim O'Brien *was his assistant.

*Rick Pitino*, the new coach for the Celtics, drafts Antoine. _Again, _*Jim O'Brien *is his assistant. 

*Jim O'Brien *takes over as head coach and we soon learn that he favors three-point shooting even _more_ than Pitino. *John Carroll *is his assistant.

*John Carroll* takes over and doesn't change the strategy one bit.

Antoine gets traded to Dallas where *Don Nelson*, _another _coach who isn't ashamed of a three-point shot, is the coach.

By then, Antoine was brainwashed into this system.

Okay, I'm done arguing (for now).


----------



## Truth34

Look, when we made the trade with Dallas, Danny did have a plan. He even mentioned that Chris Mills was big because he might give the team flexibility to improve its talent. No, he didn't know about Rasheed yet; nobody did, but he factored a several million dollar expiring contract into the equation. 

So I don't think it was luck at all. Nor do I think the draft picks were. Study Ainge's moves closely, and I think you'll find he is very good at evaluating talent.

As for all of this arguing on Walker, I will only add that he cannot seem to make a layup or a free throw. Maybe that is why he stays outside.


----------



## LX

Truth34 said:


> Look, when we made the trade with Dallas, Danny did have a plan. He even mentioned that Chris Mills was big because he might give the team flexibility to improve its talent. No, he didn't know about Rasheed yet; nobody did, but he factored a several million dollar expiring contract into the equation.
> 
> So I don't think it was luck at all. Nor do I think the draft picks were. Study Ainge's moves closely, and I think you'll find he is very good at evaluating talent.
> 
> As for all of this arguing on Walker, I will only add that he cannot seem to make a layup or a free throw. Maybe that is why he stays outside.


Yeah but he can't make anything from the outside either...

You would think you'd try and shoot closer. At least you have a better chance of getting the rebound after bricking an easy layup. :clown:


----------



## Premier

Sure, Ainge is good at evaluating talent (making the pick worth more). Sure, he knew Chris Mills was useful (75% of _casual_ basketball fans know that expiring contracts are useful). Does that mean that he had a plan to draft Delonte West and Tony Allen and somehow get Chucky Atkins only to trade him for Gary Payton and a first? Did he know that Jiri Welsch, who was a terrible acquisition, would be traded for a first?

Someone justify that the Antoine Walker trade (original) _helped _the Celtics.


----------



## Premier

Lanteri said:


> Yeah but he can't make anything from the outside either...
> 
> You would think you'd try and shoot closer. At least you have a better chance of getting the rebound after bricking an easy layup. :clown:


Bill Russell was a terrible shooter (please excuse me from comparing Antoine to the second greatest basketball player alive), but he did other things to help his team win (now do you see the comparison?).


----------



## LX

Premier said:


> Bill Russell was a terrible shooter (please excuse me from comparing Antoine to the second greatest basketball player alive), but he did other things to help his team win (now do you see the comparison?).


I can't even begin to justify any comparison between Walker and Russell. 

Walker= Rodney Rogers.


----------



## Premier

Lanteri said:


> I can't even begin to justify any comparison between Walker and Russell.
> 
> Walker= Rodney Rogers.


"Please excuse me..."

:clown:


----------



## LX

Antoine Walker is a Poor Man's Rodney Rogers 

:banana:


----------



## Causeway

Premier said:


> Let's see:
> 
> * Rick Pitino *coached Antoine during his collegiate career in Kentucky. Pitino is easily recognized as a coach who favors three-point shots. *Jim O'Brien *was his assistant.
> 
> *Rick Pitino*, the new coach for the Celtics, drafts Antoine. _Again, _*Jim O'Brien *is his assistant.
> 
> *Jim O'Brien *takes over as head coach and we soon learn that he favors three-point shooting even _more_ than Pitino. *John Carroll *is his assistant.
> 
> *John Carroll* takes over and doesn't change the strategy one bit.
> 
> Antoine gets traded to Dallas where *Don Nelson*, _another _coach who isn't ashamed of a three-point shot, is the coach.
> 
> By then, Antoine was brainwashed into this system.
> 
> Okay, I'm done arguing (for now).


Let's see:

He shot too many 3's - and too many ill timed 3's - because of his coach.

He does not get to the free thow line - because of the refs.

When he does get to the line he misses 50% of them - why the coach?

He can't make a layup - why?

He shoots too much - coach again?

He played pretty good when he first came back to oston for Doc - and then regress back - why? Pitino?

Sorry. Too many excuses.


----------



## Premier

Causeway said:


> Let's see:
> 
> He shot too many 3's - and too many ill timed 3's - because of his coach.


Yes, this is mostly because of his coaches installing bad habits into Antoine during the part of his career where he learns how to play the game at a proffesional level. 




> He does not get to the free thow line - because of the refs.


Well, if he stopped bickering to the refs, he might get more calls, but the referee's do serve as an excuse for him not getting to the free throw line.




> When he does get to the line he misses 50% of them - why the coach?


 
Antoine's fault. Laziness.




> He can't make a layup - why?


 
He gets fouled while going up for a layup, throwing off his layup. 
He shoots too much - coach again?




> He played pretty good when he first came back to oston for Doc - and then regress back - why? Pitino?


aqua said this two days ago. When Antoine was traded back, he was just playing basketball, having fun. After that, he tried to adjust to Doc's system, but he didn't have enough time. Remember, other players get the offseason to do this. Antoine had the day off between games.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

Premier said:


> aqua said this two days ago. When Antoine was traded back, he was just playing basketball, having fun. After that, he tried to adjust to Doc's system, but he didn't have enough time. Remember, other players get the offseason to do this. Antoine had the day off between games.



SOME people in this forum dont realize this...they think that a player can get traded and all of a sudden change their way of playing and adjust to the system...as ive said b4 give walker an entire training camp, preseason and regular season and watch how much he'll be worth to this team


----------



## BackwoodsBum

Premier said:


> So...how are the Titans doing?
> 
> :clown:


OUCH! That one hurt  I live in Middle Tennessee and work just outside Nashville and it seems that all I hear about around here right now is which player got hurt today. It's freakin MAY and half the team is hurt. Gonna be a long year for Titan fans


----------



## aquaitious

Causeway said:


> That was a fantastic trade. Easily an A. People keep talking about Raefs contract. So what? Are you paying it? If he was making less what would that mean - that we'd be under the cap? And what would that do for us? Nothing. Raef was great this season. Great.
> 
> Add Tony Allen, Delonte West AND a future #1 pick and that trade is amazing. The only issue I have with it is that we let Walker back in. However that was only for about a quarter of a season and hopefully Danny will pull off a nice sign-and-trade with Walker.



I've seen people hate on Antoine for ever possible reason, but this is just ridiculous.

I know you hate him, but to give the trade a "A" is just silly.


Prem, you talk about Raef's contract killing us from getting free agents, well I'm not worried much about other players as I am with us trying to resign our own. Al Jefferson will be a max contract guy once his rookie contract runs out. Davis will be needing more money, Perkins won't be playing for the same, nor will Banks, Allen will also need an increase. (If we decide to keep half of them). Great Raef landed us 3 1st rounders, 1 is West, the other is Allen (and the last will be in 2007), but last year, we could have easily bought a pick or two, and the fact that we couldn't trade up, down or into the future because no one wanted to add players to their rosters makes those draft picks irrelevent. A team even bought a pick with money.


----------



## SamIam

I think you are forgetting about the state of the Celtics when Ainge came on board in your analysis of Walker trade.

1. Baker 18 million a year for 4 years. Walker 13 million a year for 2 years. Pierce 12 million a year for 4 years.
2. Ainge had to trade 1 or the roster he inherited was the one he would have for 2 years with no flexibility and a playoff team that would get knocked out in 1st round so that draft picks would be nearly useless.

Without the trade we don't get Jefferson. We don't get Allen or West. We don't get LA pick or Cleveland pick. When you factor his brilliant use of salaries to get Walker back and factor in drafting of Jefferson and Perkins whose rookie contracts will nicely balance Raef's contract the deal was genius. You just have to look at it the right way.

Most teams without a legitimate big man end up with 3 Blount types at 6 million a year like Philly or Sacramento or Golden State. So we have Jefferson and Perkins for a total of 2 million a year to go with Raef's 10 million. That is 3 quality big men at an average of 4 million each (or less than Chris Mihm's contract.). If we can ditch Blount and keep Walker at 6 million (Big IFs) then we have C/PF combo of Jefferson, Raef, Walker and Perkins at a total of 18 million or roughly 40% of salary cap. 

Without Baker/Blount dead money of 11 million a year we could get another quality veteran but given what Danny faced when he started you can't ask for everything. Yes if he knew Baker situation would resolve the way it did maybe letting Walker walk right now would give us some money to sign a free agent. However, a sign and trade of Walker could yield the same result anyway.


----------



## Premier

Glad to have you back, Sam.

These are all what if's and therefore, we are arguing about what _we think _might have happened _if _some transaction didn't happen or if we didn't sign someone etc. I'm pleased with Danny Ainge's production so far and I think he only made one transaction that I would immediatly reverse, disregarding the future events that just so happend to occur as a result of it.


----------



## agoo

Someone else finally understands that Antoine's habits are a product of coaching. If Doc wants Walker to get in the post, then Doc needs to sit him down when he takes threes. For all of his career, he's had coaches that want him to dribble the ball and to play in the perimeter. So when someone doesn't get the balls up to bench him when he does what he's been trained to do, its not entirely his fault. Additionally, he's had some success with chucking threes. Would I love to see him in the post? Hell yes. He'd be our best post player and would probably he the best we've had since McHale was in town. However, Doc needs to tell him to do that.

As for the entire topic of the post, I like Ainge's work thus far. He's a terrific drafter as I think Jefferson will be a star in the league, Banks will be in the better half of PGs (at least), Perkins will make himself known as a big time rebounder and defender (once he learns to channel his intensity to the flow of action), and Allen can make himself into a Ron Artest type player (without the insanity). 

His trades can be headscratchers, but there is a vision (and one that can work) applied to this team. The last time we had a vision, after Reggie Lewis died was Rick Pitino applying his college scheme to the pro game, which was ridiculous.

As for an analysis of the Walker deal, you cannot include the Welsch deal, as he intended on Welsch being a player here for years to come (just read any article about the deal). You can include the pick he got for Chris Mills, but only conceptually, in that it was the value of his contract. When you're going into a detailed analysis of the deal, it was Walker and Delk for LaFrentz, LaFrentz's contract, Welsch, Mills' contract, and a low first rounder. Based on that, it wasn't a really good deal. But sometimes the bad deals work out for you in the long run.

What some people, those who include Delonte West and Tony Allen as parts of the Walker deal, should be doing is comparing the team he inherited and the team he has now.

That team looked like this:
C--Battie-Blount-Baker
PF-Walker-McCarty-Baker
SF-Williams-Brown (as in Kedrick)-McCarty
SG-Pierce-Delk
PG-Bremer-Delk

We also had a single first rounder and a single second each year as well as the rights to Darius Songaila.

Now we have:
C--LaFrentz-Blount-Perkins
PF-Jefferson-Perkins
SF-Pierce-Davis-Reed
SG-Allen-Davis
PG-Banks-West

In addition, we have a first and two second this season, as well as what we are owed, an additional first which we'll get from the Cavs or the Lakers (depending on what the Hawks get) as well as a second. We also have Bird Rights on Antoine Walker. We also have a portion of Baker's contract on the books. We also have a bit of an inside track on Gary Payton, which I still like.

Overall, I'd say we've improved. Ainge's plan is to bring dominating fast break teams to Boston. He's doing that through stock piling young players and draft picks. I am now under the impression that Mark Blount was not his idea, which speaks well for him. He, somewhat, forced out Jim O'Brien, which will help in the long run. Then he brought in Doc, who won't be here when we win 17, but I think he's the type of motivator that our kids need right now.

Its been a good two seasons, and I am interested by what he has the chance to do this summer.



SamIam said:


> *Without the trade we don't get Jefferson.*


I think that's one think we all (myself included) failed to mention. Though, that's more of a fortunate side effect than a part of the plan that Ainge had.


----------



## Delontes Herpes

agoo101284 said:


> Someone else finally understands that Antoine's habits are a product of coaching. If Doc wants Walker to get in the post, then Doc needs to sit him down when he takes threes. For all of his career, he's had coaches that want him to dribble the ball and to play in the perimeter. So when someone doesn't get the balls up to bench him when he does what he's been trained to do, its not entirely his fault. Additionally, he's had some success with chucking threes. Would I love to see him in the post? Hell yes. He'd be our best post player and would probably he the best we've had since McHale was in town. However, Doc needs to tell him to do that.


This is dead wrong. Antoine wasn't even the best post up player on the team this year. Pierce and Payton were probably the 2 best. AJ was better too. At best Toine was the 4th best low post player on our team this year.

This is the common misconception about him- he's a 6'9 PF who's good at rebounding so he would probably be able to dominate down low if he stopped taking 3's. And this is dead wrong. Antoine has no excellent aspect of his offensive game. He is tall with good handles, good passing, and a decent 3 pt shot. The strength of his offensive game is his versatility. If you just post him up all game he won't be effective.

As a side note (I've already mentioned this before), he was only taking three 3's a game for us this year at 34.2%. I don't see how this hurts the team.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

Delontes Herpes said:


> As a side note (I've already mentioned this before), he was only taking three 3's a game for us this year at 34.2%. I don't see how this hurts the team.



it doesnt...toine haters just have the image of him shootin eight 3's a game burned into their skull from 2 years ago...they dont realized that he tweaked his game as much as he could in the short period of time that he had


----------



## Causeway

aquaitious said:


> I've seen people hate on Antoine for ever possible reason, but this is just ridiculous.
> 
> I know you hate him, but to give the trade a "A" is just silly.


How is it silly? Look at the net result - including Al Jefferson as noted above. That makes the move an A+++.

And I don't "hate" Walker. I love the Celtics. And yes hate that Walker is on the Celtics. 

As noted above look at the mess Ainge took on. The first Walker trade has led to amazing things. What's so silly about that? Unless you love Walker more than the Celtics. Now THAT is just silly and ridiculous.


----------



## Causeway

> Yes, this is mostly because of his coaches installing bad habits into Antoine during the part of his career where he learns how to play the game at a proffesional level.


There comes a point where a guy is a pro and he needs to understand what he does well. Blaming the coaches is a stretch.



> Well, if he stopped bickering to the refs, he might get more calls, but the referee's do serve as an excuse for him not getting to the free throw line.


Bickering to the refs is a negative. Not knowing how to draw a foul is a negative. Walker does both.



> Antoine's fault. Laziness.


And the fact that he has a crap shot.



> He gets fouled while going up for a layup, throwing off his layup


Not THAT is a joke. What about the wide open fast breat layups he misses - including the one recently in the playoffs? Was that the refs fault? Or maybe it was ML Carrs fault.



> aqua said this two days ago. When Antoine was traded back, he was just playing basketball, having fun. After that, he tried to adjust to Doc's system, but he didn't have enough time. Remember, other players get the offseason to do this. Antoine had the day off between games.


So by having fun at the begining he played within a system and under control. When he tried to "adjust" to Docs system he decided the best way was to launch at will? Makes totally no sense at all.


----------



## SamIam

Premier said:


> Let's see:
> 
> * Rick Pitino *coached Antoine during his collegiate career in Kentucky. Pitino is easily recognized as a coach who favors three-point shots. *Jim O'Brien *was his assistant.
> 
> *Rick Pitino*, the new coach for the Celtics, drafts Antoine. _Again, _*Jim O'Brien *is his assistant.
> 
> *Jim O'Brien *takes over as head coach and we soon learn that he favors three-point shooting even _more_ than Pitino. *John Carroll *is his assistant.
> 
> *John Carroll* takes over and doesn't change the strategy one bit.
> 
> Antoine gets traded to Dallas where *Don Nelson*, _another _coach who isn't ashamed of a three-point shot, is the coach.
> 
> By then, Antoine was brainwashed into this system.
> 
> Okay, I'm done arguing (for now).


Not to nit pick but it was actually ML Carr who drafted Antoine Walker and coached his first season. ML let Antoine rule the ship and the team won 8-10 games in the hopes of winning the Duncan sweepstakes. Failure to reign in Walker as a rookie and failure to force him to develop good habits led to wasting his first 3-4 years. For all those who want to just give Jefferson and Perkins minutes without them earning it first should remind themselves of what that did to Toine.

Interestingly, Pitino was an analyst for the draft when Walker was picked and he practically said that Dallas robbed the Celtics when they switched picks with the Celtics and drafted Samaki Walker and also acquired Eric Montross. The Celtics got the #8 pick and drafted Toine and also got a lottery pick when Duncan was drafted which turned out to be Ron Mercer at #6(but could have been Tracy McGrady who was #7). Right then and there I knew Pitino shouldn't be a GM. We already knew Montross was a stiff.


----------



## Causeway

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> it doesnt...toine haters just have the image of him shootin eight 3's a game burned into their skull from 2 years ago...they dont realized that he tweaked his game as much as he could in the short period of time that he had


Enough with the "'toin haters" comment. It's a weak and lazy argument. Talk facts if you want but the "you are just a 'toin hater" is tired.

Annd as stated before it does hurt the team. Walkers 3's generally come at crappy game momentum moments where a 2 would be huge and a missed 3 some times leading to a fast break 2 for the other team is also huge. He's not good at hitting FT's never mind 3's. Don't take them - ever.


----------



## Causeway

> Rick Pitino, the new coach for the Celtics, drafts Antoine. Again, Jim O'Brien is his assistant.





> but it was actually ML Carr who drafted Antoine Walker and coached his first season.


Good point.


----------



## whiterhino

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Me running screaming from the room as I read this debate for the ninty millionth time) :clown:


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

Causeway said:


> Enough with the "'toin haters" comment. It's a weak and lazy argument. Talk facts if you want but the "you are just a 'toin hater" is tired.



and ur "antoine takes bad 3's and cant hit a ft" is tired...wahts ur point...u look at numbers for ur facts...i look at what happens in the game...sure hes gonna take sum bad 3s and miss some fts...what nba player doesnt?...watch kobe for a full season he'll make sum ******* mistakes...does that mean the lakers should trade him? no because the good outweighs the bad...and dont go gettin on em cuz im not comparin toine to kobe...but as with a player like kobe...with toine the positive way surpass the negatives in his game...u just dwell on the negatives and this is why u cant see it


----------



## Truth34

Causeway said:


> How is it silly? Look at the net result - including Al Jefferson as noted above. That makes the move an A+++.
> 
> And I don't "hate" Walker. I love the Celtics. And yes hate that Walker is on the Celtics.
> 
> As noted above look at the mess Ainge took on. The first Walker trade has led to amazing things. What's so silly about that? Unless you love Walker more than the Celtics. Now THAT is just silly and ridiculous.


POST OF THE MONTH!!!! MAYBE THE YEAR!!!


----------



## Causeway

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> and ur "antoine takes bad 3's and cant hit a ft" is tired...wahts ur point...u look at numbers for ur facts...i look at what happens in the game...sure hes gonna take sum bad 3s and miss some fts...what nba player doesnt?...watch kobe for a full season he'll make sum ******* mistakes...does that mean the lakers should trade him? no because the good outweighs the bad...and dont go gettin on em cuz im not comparin toine to kobe...but as with a player like kobe...with toine the positive way surpass the negatives in his game...u just dwell on the negatives and this is why u cant see it


What's my point? The point is talk about basketball. To just say "ou don't like Walker because you hate him" is a 3rd grade point.

You go start your team with Kobe and Antoine Walker. I don't want either of them on the Celtics. With both of them the nagatives outweigh the positives. I am not surprised at all you'd use Kobe Bryant as your comparison though. Kobe fans are full of excuses for him as well.

Antoine Walker Lover.


----------



## aquaitious

Causeway said:


> How is it silly? Look at the net result - including Al Jefferson as noted above. That makes the move an A+++.
> 
> And I don't "hate" Walker. I love the Celtics. And yes hate that Walker is on the Celtics.
> 
> As noted above look at the mess Ainge took on. The first Walker trade has led to amazing things. What's so silly about that? Unless you love Walker more than the Celtics. Now THAT is just silly and ridiculous.



You can't include Al Jefferson in the first Walker deal. It's like saying we could have had Tim Duncan, Pierce, Walker, Parker, McGrady, Marion on the same team. It just so happened that we got Al Jefferson...in a draft were people were SELLING picks.

On the "hating" Walker topic you basically contradicting yourself.

I believe that Danny could have gotten a similar roster with Antoine and Pierce still on board. Maybe not all the draft picks that he has nor the exact same roster, but he could have come pretty darn close.


----------



## Causeway

aquaitious said:


> You can't include Al Jefferson in the first Walker deal. It's like saying we could have had Tim Duncan, Pierce, Walker, Parker, McGrady, Marion on the same team. It just so happened that we got Al Jefferson...in a draft were people were SELLING picks.
> 
> On the "hating" Walker topic you basically contradicting yourself.
> 
> I believe that Danny could have gotten a similar roster with Antoine and Pierce still on board. Maybe not all the draft picks that he has nor the exact same roster, but he could have come pretty darn close.


I believe Danny had a plan when he made that trade. He got all those pieces for a reason. Did he know he'd end up with AJ? No. But he knew that getting picks and using them wisely is a good thing. And he used them VERY wisely. I do not think it was an accident. So I can and do give Danny full credit for he moves. You don't have to.

As far as contradicting myself - how am I doing that? By Callin #1AntoineLover a Walker Lover? That was tounge in cheek. I'll take it back if you like.

As for your final point - PLEASE tell me how Ainge could now have a similar roster without the Walker trrade (Pierce is still here so I am not sure why you include him). I do not see a way but you can't just say "he could have done it anyway". Let's hear how.

And for the record - does that mean you are saying that the first Walker trade deserves an A? Also - he got Walker back. So basically he DID make all those moves without losing Walker.

Fortunately Walker is gone but that's besides the point.


----------



## Premier

Yes, but he could've easily gotten picks by _not _trading Antoine by convincing Wyc to buy a first-round pick. An expiring contarct isn't that hard to traded for. The same goes for a first-round pick. Giving up Antoine for _that_ and Raef's terrible contract (which disallow's us from signing any good players or acquiring a draft pick by throwing cash into a deal that would improve our roster) makes this deal down right pathetic. Yes, Ainge could've gotten a similar roster. He would just have to get very lucky on trades (and we all know that's possible as Ainge _has _done just that).


----------



## Delontes Herpes

Causeway said:


> Enough with the "'toin haters" comment. It's a weak and lazy argument. Talk facts if you want but the "you are just a 'toin hater" is tired.
> 
> Annd as stated before it does hurt the team. Walkers 3's generally come at crappy game momentum moments where a 2 would be huge and a missed 3 some times leading to a fast break 2 for the other team is also huge. He's not good at hitting FT's never mind 3's. Don't take them - ever.


explain to me what's wrong with taking three 3's a game at 34.2%. and you have no hard evidence that he takes 3's at the wrong time...maybe due to your dislike of antoine you remembered a few and they stick out in your mind (i'm not saying that you're wrong, i'm just saying i'm not taking your word for this...i wasn't able to catch many celtics games this year going to college in NC).

also FTs and 3's are unrelated. he is awful at FTs but a decent 3 pt shooter. bruce bowen is a 63.4% FT shooter, i'm assuming you think he should also refrain from shooting 3's.


----------



## aquaitious

Causeway said:


> I believe Danny had a plan when he made that trade. He got all those pieces for a reason. Did he know he'd end up with AJ? No. But he knew that getting picks and using them wisely is a good thing. And he used them VERY wisely. I do not think it was an accident. So I can and do give Danny full credit for he moves. You don't have to.


Yeah, sure...Danny had a plan all along.

"Yea, I'll trade Antoine. Then I'll get him back in 2 years. I'll also draft Al Jerfferson because we'll do bad the season after Antoine's departure. I'll also trade Mike James for Chucky Atkins, whom I'll later trade for Gary Payton, who will be traded for Antoine Walker (once he's on the Hawks) and I'll get Gary to resign with the Celtics. Yup, that's what I'll do."



> As far as contradicting myself - how am I doing that? By Callin #1AntoineLover a Walker Lover? That was tounge in cheek. I'll take it back if you like.


Uh...not really, I quoted you, I don't know why you're brining up what you said to AW#1.



> As for your final point - PLEASE tell me how Ainge could now have a similar roster without the Walker trrade (Pierce is still here so I am not sure why you include him). I do not see a way but you can't just say "he could have done it anyway". Let's hear how.


He's a bright guy, maybe _you're_ the one who's not giving "Danny full credit" for what he _could_ do.

Who knows? Maybe we could have had an even better roster than we do now.


----------



## Premier

You cannot judget the original Antoine Walker trade while including the most recent Antoine Walker trade in your argument. Again, Ainge was lucky to get Antoine back after making a mistake with his first trade. 

This might be irrelevant, but let me throw this out (this has nothing to do with your post, Causeway). Fan support was down and Boston was getting unruly with disappointing seasons (although the first round wasn't any different). As they traded for Antoine, ticket sales increased to 2001-2002 level.


----------



## Premier

Also, by the way, please explain to me why cap room doesn't matter for the Celtics. You never replied to my post.


----------



## Causeway

Premier said:


> Yes, but he could've easily gotten picks by _not _trading Antoine by convincing Wyc to buy a first-round pick. An expiring contarct isn't that hard to traded for. The same goes for a first-round pick. Giving up Antoine for _that_ and Raef's terrible contract (which disallow's us from signing any good players or acquiring a draft pick by throwing cash into a deal that would improve our roster) makes this deal down right pathetic. Yes, Ainge could've gotten a similar roster. He would just have to get very lucky on trades (and we all know that's possible as Ainge _has _done just that).


I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I've said my peace on this. I know I am in the minority here on Ainge and the Walker trade. It's easy to say he could have done this or that - but I don't think it's so easy. Many trades go down where you have to take on a contract or something to make a move. It happens all the time. I can live with Raefs contract. he is a nice player. There are guys on the bench and on the IR on other teams with equal contracts. 

I trust in Ainge and give him an A all around and an A for the first Walker trade. And I'm sticking by that.


----------



## Premier

I'd rather live with Walker's contract. He's a much nicer player, plus his contract was only for _two_ years allowing us to be more versatile when it comes to transactions (something Danny Ainge is very good at, I must admit). The point of trading for an expiring contract is to rid yourself of salary. You do not do this by trading away players with two years left on their contract. First-round picks can always be easily acquired.


----------



## Causeway

Delontes Herpes said:


> explain to me what's wrong with taking three 3's a game at 34.2%. and you have no hard evidence that he takes 3's at the wrong time...maybe due to your dislike of antoine you remembered a few and they stick out in your mind (i'm not saying that you're wrong, i'm just saying i'm not taking your word for this...i wasn't able to catch many celtics games this year going to college in NC).
> 
> also FTs and 3's are unrelated. he is awful at FTs but a decent 3 pt shooter. bruce bowen is a 63.4% FT shooter, i'm assuming you think he should also refrain from shooting 3's.


I watched almost every C's game this season. I was at Walker's first game back at the Fleet. At that game alone he did it. The C's were cruising. The crowd was going nuts. We have a break. Walker chucks up a crap 3 and deflates the crowd.

No there is no hard evidence on his timing. I watch enough games though. His timing on 3'd stinks.

My point on FT's is GENERALLY poor FT shooters are poor outside shooters in general. Bowen is an exception.


----------



## Causeway

Premier said:


> You cannot judget the original Antoine Walker trade while including the most recent Antoine Walker trade in your argument. Again, Ainge was lucky to get Antoine back after making a mistake with his first trade.
> 
> This might be irrelevant, but let me throw this out (this has nothing to do with your post, Causeway). Fan support was down and Boston was getting unruly with disappointing seasons (although the first round wasn't any different). As they traded for Antoine, ticket sales increased to 2001-2002 level.


Ainge was right to trade him the first time. And this season playoffs showed why he'll be right again to show Walker the door.

The fan support thing was brought up already. The increase was do to a playoff push (arguably helped by Walker) and some excitement that Walker was back. I would bet that this would not last over a full season.


----------



## Premier

Then why were ticket sales greater in the years Antoine was back (over the regular season, excluding our impressive playoff runs [by my standards])?


----------



## Causeway

aquaitious said:


> Yeah, sure...Danny had a plan all along.
> 
> "Yea, I'll trade Antoine. Then I'll get him back in 2 years. I'll also draft Al Jerfferson because we'll do bad the season after Antoine's departure. I'll also trade Mike James for Chucky Atkins, whom I'll later trade for Gary Payton, who will be traded for Antoine Walker (once he's on the Hawks) and I'll get Gary to resign with the Celtics. Yup, that's what I'll do."
> 
> Uh...not really, I quoted you, I don't know why you're brining up what you said to AW#1.
> 
> He's a bright guy, maybe _you're_ the one who's not giving "Danny full credit" for what he _could_ do.
> 
> Who knows? Maybe we could have had an even better roster than we do now.


Not that exact plan [strike]wise guy[/strike]. But a plan. And a plan that panned out. How is that a negative?

Could he have done better? I am not sure what the point here is. THe question was dod you think has Ainge done a good job. I say es and give him an A.

Let's try to keep this disscussion, which has been excellent by the way, civil and mature. Refrain from stooping down to personal attacks, no matter how elusive they might be.


----------



## Causeway

Premier said:


> Also, by the way, please explain to me why cap room doesn't matter for the Celtics. You never replied to my post.


I answered this. And I NEVER said cap room does not matter for the Celtics.

What I already DID say was that generally the nice thing about cap space is attracting FA's. ANd top FA's don't come to Boston.


----------



## Causeway

Premier said:


> Then why were ticket sales greater in the years Antoine was back (over the regular season, excluding our impressive playoff runs [by my standards])?


Greater than what? What are you comparing the Walker years to? THe Bird years when we were always sold out? Or the years when we won 15 games? Seriously - what is your comparison?


----------



## Premier

Where? You answered another part of my post.

Cap space allows Ainge to have more control with trades. It never hurts and it should always be used wisely. As mentioned by me before, spending recklessly and trading for over-valued players doesn't equal sucess. Look at the Knicks. For a further argument, my post:




> *Quote:*





> <table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px inset ;" class="alt2"> Originally Posted by *Causeway* That was a fantastic trade. Easily an A. People keep talking about Raefs contract. So what? Are you paying it? If he was making less what would that mean - that we'd be under the cap? And what would that do for us? Nothing. Raef was great this season. Great.
> 
> </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
> 
> Do I really have to argue this?
> 
> Why talk about Raef's contract? How about because LaFrentz's contract disallows us from having _any _chance at landing solid role-players who can match his production for half the price. We would also be more a more functional trading partner because we can take on more money and still remain under the luxury tax, which Wyc and crew are reluctant to pay. Also, we could "buy" draft picks and throw in cash to even out a deal that was in our favor (which potentially really improves our roster). _What if _(yes, I know it's cliche) we were after a free agent that would dramatically help us, but someone matched our bid (and according to you, _*no*_ free agent would sign with us if some other team was offering more money. The cold weather arguement, which is just plain silly...). If we were able to throw more money at that said player, we would improve our chances at signing that player.
> 
> ... Your argument is redundant. There is a reason why the Knicks do not suceed. Overpaying players limits your chances at signing _better _players.


----------



## Delontes Herpes

Causeway said:


> My point on FT's is GENERALLY poor FT shooters are poor outside shooters in general. Bowen is an exception.


as is antoine


----------



## Causeway

aquaitious said:


> Uh...not really, I quoted you, I don't know why you're brining up what you said to AW#1.


So how did I contradict myself?


----------



## Premier

Causeway said:


> Greater than what? What are you comparing the Walker years to? THe Bird years when we were always sold out? Or the years when we won 15 games? Seriously - what is your comparison?


Although I probably cannot find statistical evidence, fan interest and ticket sales _during the 01-02 and 02-03 seasons_ were clearly higher than interest during last season _before_ the trade deadline.


----------



## Causeway

Delontes Herpes said:


> as is antoine


you think Walker is a good shooter? you have got to be kidding me. He could have the worst shot in the NBA. It's this flick shot with no spin that rarely goes in. How does that make Walker the exception.


----------



## Premier

Causeway said:


> So how did I contradict myself?


Part of one of your past posts:



> And I don't "hate" Walker. I love the Celtics. And yes hate that Walker is on the Celtics.


----------



## Premier

Causeway said:


> you think Walker is a good shooter? you have got to be kidding me. He could have the worst shot in the NBA. It's this flick shot with no spin that rarely goes in. How does that make Walker the exception.


Antoine is a decent three-point shooter, especially considering his build.


----------



## Causeway

I think comparing Ainge in any way to what the Knicks has done truly disrespects what Ainge has done. He came into a messy team. We now have amazing youth, addition picks and some good vets. Raefs contract is big but to compare it o the Knicks is not even close to reality.


----------



## Causeway

Premier said:


> Antoine is a decent three-point shooter, *especially considering his build*.


what does that mean - especially considering his build? You are good good 3 point shooter or you are not. What does his build have to do with it?


----------



## Premier

Causeway said:


> what does that mean - especially considering his build? You are good good 3 point shooter or you are not. What does his build have to do with it?


Antoine's non-muscular body limits the release of his shot. He is a set shooter because of this. He has to carry more weight while shooting taking a toll on his body. Let's hope he gets into better shape. Also, I was referring to how Antoine is a good three-point shooter for his size.


----------



## Premier

Causeway said:


> I think comparing Ainge in any way to what the Knicks has done truly disrespects what Ainge has done. He came into a messy team. We now have amazing youth, addition picks and some good vets. Raefs contract is big but to compare it o the Knicks is not even close to reality.


That isn't my point. You're avoiding the gist of my post.


----------



## Causeway

Premier said:


> Antoine's non-muscular body limits the release of his shot. He is a set shooter because of this. He has to carry more weight while shooting taking a toll on his body. Let's hope he gets into better shape. Also, I was referring to how Antoine is a good three-point shooter for his size.


Either you are a good 3 point shooter or you are not. Regardless of size. 3 point shots are not his stregnth. 

If he does come back (PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE NO) and if I was Doc I'd say to Walker "one 3 pointer. Just one. And you sit. In fact don't even go behind that line. Get across it as fast as you can and don't look back".


----------



## Causeway

Premier said:


> That isn't my point. You're avoiding the gist of my post.


You keep throwing out the Knicks when Raef comes up. Maybe I don't get your "gist" but I am not avoiding anything.


----------



## Delontes Herpes

Causeway said:


> you think Walker is a good shooter? you have got to be kidding me. He could have the worst shot in the NBA. It's this flick shot with no spin that rarely goes in. How does that make Walker the exception.


34.2% with the celtics this year ain't bad.


----------



## LX

Premier said:


> Antoine's non-muscular body limits the release of his shot. He is a set shooter because of this. He has to carry more weight while shooting taking a toll on his body. Let's hope he gets into better shape. Also, I was referring to how Antoine is a good three-point shooter for his size.


That has to be the worst argument for Antoine ever. You're really reaching now Premier...


----------



## Premier

Lanteri said:


> That has to be the worst argument for Antoine ever. You're really reaching now Premier...


I'm not really making any excuse's for him, although I might be "reaching".

Edit: Now that I'm thinking about it, I just used that statement as a model to strengthen my overall premise. I did get carried away, though.


----------



## Delontes Herpes

Causeway said:


> Either you are a good 3 point shooter or you are not. Regardless of size. 3 point shots are not his stregnth.
> 
> If he does come back (PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE NO) and if I was Doc I'd say to Walker "one 2 pointer. Just one. And you sit. In fact don't even go behind that line. Get across it as fast as you can and don't look back".


i'm glad you're not doc.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

Delontes Herpes said:


> i'm glad you're not doc.



hahahahaha


and yes premeir that was definetley a reach...even _I_ wouldnt make that claim lololol


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

Causeway said:


> you think Walker is a good shooter? you have got to be kidding me. He could have the worst shot in the NBA. It's this flick shot with no spin that rarely goes in. How does that make Walker the exception.



rarely huh?? considering during walkers time with the celts this year he had the highest fg% of his career at over 44% i would really like to know what u mean by rarely...

o but wait all of his misses were at critical and dumb points in the game...o yea thats it

since u love stats and box scores...walker had better fg AND 3pt percentages in his time with the celts than iverson, mcgrady, kobe, rasheed, and chris webber did for the season, just to name a few...i guess u wouldnt want any of them on ur team either huh??


----------



## Premier

Guys, guys... Why the bickering? All your answers can be found right here.


----------



## Causeway

Delontes Herpes said:


> i'm glad you're not doc.


I am glad you are not Ainge.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

Causeway said:


> I am glad you are not Ainge.





Delontes Herpes said:


> i'm glad you're not doc.



Im glad you are both glad :biggrin:


----------



## Delontes Herpes

Causeway said:


> I am glad you are not Ainge.


all i'm saying is that you have no basis for your argument. he shoots 3's at a decent percentage and has cut down significantly since o'brien encouraged him to take 8-9 a game.

and he's not a good post player. he's a mediocre post player who happens to be fairly large. the strength of his offensive game is that he can play on the inside and the outside. if you posted him up all game he wouldn't be very good.

and i'm glad i'm not ainge either. it would be fun but i probably wouldn't do as good of a job.


----------



## P-Dub34

If Walker shoots triples at 33% again, I don't object to like 2 per game if he's smart about them (like that's gonna happen). 

Whoever's idea it was to try and make Walker a 3 point shooter is a retard. O'Bie? Pitino? What Walker needs is merely to have the 3 respected, and to do that he doesn't need to take more than 1 or 2 per game. If they respect his triple, it helps a lot inside.

Walker won't ever buy into a system which "limits" him to 12 FGAT's/game with few triples involved. This isn't a three point shooting team anymore.

If any of you don't know why Walker shoots so many threes, IMHO it's not because of his coaching or whatnot. It's because he remembers the nights he goes 3-4 and forgets the 0-5, 0-6 nights.


----------



## Delontes Herpes

when jim o'brien was coaching he would tell antoine "if you have an open 3 you better take it"

so he got into the habit of taking too many 3's and it's hard to just stop taking them altogether.

i think he likes to take them because they are worth more than a 2 point shot.


----------



## Causeway

P-Dub34 said:


> If Walker shoots triples at 33% again, I don't object to like 2 per game if he's smart about them (like that's gonna happen).
> 
> Whoever's idea it was to try and make Walker a 3 point shooter is a retard. O'Bie? Pitino? What Walker needs is merely to have the 3 respected, and to do that he doesn't need to take more than 1 or 2 per game. If they respect his triple, it helps a lot inside.
> 
> Walker won't ever buy into a system which "limits" him to 12 FGAT's/game with few triples involved. This isn't a three point shooting team anymore.
> 
> If any of you don't know why Walker shoots so many threes, IMHO it's not because of his coaching or whatnot. It's because he remembers the nights he goes 3-4 and forgets the 0-5, 0-6 nights.


Nice post PDUB.



> i think he likes to take them because they are worth more than a 2 point shot.


Don't forget that it has to go IN to be worth 3. He takes them because he is a knucklehead.


----------



## P-Dub34

> Don't forget that it has to go IN to be worth 3.


My sentiments exactly.

33% isn't that bad, it's one in three, that's respectable. But it's the times he decides to take them that are killer. 

As for O'Bie telling Walker to "take an open three if he has it", was he really getting 8 wide open looks from beyond the arc per game? Were the other 29 teams in the league oblivious to the fact that Antoine Walker was on the court and just let him take open triples all game? I seriously doubt it, and if they did leave him open (8 times a game...don't think so, this is just a hypothetical) obviously they didn't respect his shooting ability. O'Bie's system did wonders for Kyle Korver this year, who was pretty much able to launch at will, but that's because he's actually a good three point shooter. 

In any case, the "coach told me to do it" argument is a double-edged sword: If O'Bie told Walker to launch and he complied, he should be able to comply with Doc Rivers when he tells him not to.


----------



## Premier

Although that statement is logical, it is false. O'Brien and Pitino, who told Antoine Walker (and a lot of other Celtics) to take three-point field goals, coached Walker through his developement stage when he learned many of his good (and bad) habits. The instilled habit of taking three's cannot be easily removed. Doc will need to bench Antoine _if _he takes an *ill-advised* three (like during a fastbreak). Also, don't be hypocritical. Pierce also often takes bad shots, but he rarely gets blamed. I know Antoine is at fault more than Pierce, but don't turn a blind side to this problem for many Celtics' veterans.


----------



## Causeway

Premier said:


> Although that statement is logical, it is false. O'Brien and Pitino, who told Antoine Walker (and a lot of other Celtics) to take three-point field goals, coached Walker through his developement stage when he learned many of his good (and bad) habits. The instilled habit of taking three's cannot be easily removed. Doc will need to bench Antoine _if _he takes an *ill-advised* three (like during a fastbreak). Also, don't be hypocritical. Pierce also often takes bad shots, but he rarely gets blamed. I know Antoine is at fault more than Pierce, but don't turn a blind side to this problem for many Celtics' veterans.


SO is it Walker DOES take many bad shots - but it's O'Brien and Pitinos fault?
Or is it Walker does NOT take that many bad shots - including 3's?
Or is it he DOES take bad shots - but hey so does Pierce?


----------



## Premier

It is O'Brien and Pitino's fault that Antoine _sometimes_ takes many bad shots (all of which are three-pointers). I'm not arguing that it is okay for Walker to take bad shots so I'm not going to leave out Pierce who also _sometimes_ takes many bad shots, also.

I hope that clears it up.


----------



## Causeway

Premier said:


> It is O'Brien and Pitino's fault that Antoine _sometimes_ takes many bad shots (*all of which are three-pointers*). I'm not arguing that it is okay for Walker to take bad shots so I'm not going to leave out Pierce who also _sometimes_ takes many bad shots, also.
> 
> I hope that clears it up.


Sort of. The "Antoine _sometimes_ takes many bad shots (*all of which are three-pointers*)" is again a stretch. All his bad shots are 3's? If that is what you are saying I'd have to say it's off. The guy takes plenty of ill advised 2's.

And the theory still does not explain how Walker when he first came back played smart and took a decent amount of shots. And then as we got into the playoffs he regressed to chuck-it-at-will Walker. The theory of "_when he came back he was just playing ball. then he tried to fit into the system (by shooting 20+ shots_" does not hold water.


----------



## Premier

The statement "all of which are three-pointers" is a hyberbole, but if you consider a long-range two-point field goal, it does hold some truth. I do not object to Antoine's habit of taking (and missing) layups. I do not consider that a bad shot. He rarely takes mid-range jumpers (if you discount floaters and lean-in's, which he hits most of the time. His bad field goal percentage usually comes from his missed layups and his three-pointers, something he looks like he has controlled (somewhat).

He had a good strech when he was first traded back. Later, when he was trying to fit in Doc Rivers' system of posting up and passing out to Pierce while teammates stood out on the corner perimter, he regressed into his old habit. Antoine is at his best when he is cutting and dictating the offense. NBA.com had a video (and segment) of a play that the Celtics ran from time to time where Antoine and Pierce played a motion offense and he would end up with a layup underneath the basket. Given an off-season (hopefully, although we have varying opinions on his resigning) to learn Doc's system (which will be adjusted no doubt to include more team motion around the free-throw line as opposed to Ricky, Paul, or Antoine just driving in), I firmly believe he can exceed his (low, as of now) expectations.


----------



## agoo

This was a good topic. I wish we had stuck to it.


----------



## Premier

As I have stated before, Ainge has been exceptional sans the original Antoine Walker trade. At first, most of us had our doubts, but Ainge has pulled off good move after good move, although I wasn't too fond of the original Gary Payton/Marcus Banks deal.


----------



## Delontes Herpes

agoo101284 said:


> This was a good topic. I wish we had stuck to it.


people can still throw in their opinions on his first 2 years...although giving their opinions on either antoine trade may be ill advised :clown:


----------



## SamIam

1. Walker's 3 point shooting: Sadly, those who want him to go in the post refuse to accept that he gets swallowed alive down there by average or better post defenders. He also gets most of his 4 TO's/game that way. The rest come when he tries to be a "passer" which is the most incredibly exaggerated part of his game. He is a terrible passer. Truthfully, his 3 point shooting is better than much of the rest of game. For him to be useful he has to accept not being a scorer and focus on rebounding. Go into the post but think pass first (not tricky passes, just dump it back out) and get most of your points on put backs and out of the flow of the offense.

2. Ainge's plan was to accummulate picks in last years draft. 5 guys with lotto potential pulled out of last years draft. He knew that there would be gems in the draft and wanted as many picks as possible. He was right too with guys like Jefferson, JR Smith, Josh Smith, etc. with all star potential drafted in second half of draft.


----------



## Causeway

> For him to be useful he has to accept not being a scorer and focus on rebounding.


Amen. And therefore shooting 20+ shots and handeling the ball as much as he does no matter how it gets spinned is WAY too much for Walker.

That's why I want his butt under the boards. Not because of his post play - that is crap as well. He has good hands. Use them for rebounds and then got out of the way.


----------



## Truth34

Ainge has been great all the way through, INCLUDING the first Antoine Walker deal.

As for Walker, I cannot believe the Walker advocates are actually saying that statistically, Walker is a benefit, when all the numbers say otherwise.

Walker has a lot of intangibles that certainly can help a team win. But the tangibles should count for something, too.

When asked why he took so many threes in his last year with the Cetlics before K-Mart beat him up and took his lunch money, Walker replied, 'Because they don't have any fours."

That sums up Antoine's love of the three. Don't blame anyone but him.


----------



## aquaitious

Truth34 said:


> As for Walker, I cannot believe the Walker advocates are actually saying that statistically, Walker is a benefit, when all the numbers say otherwise.


Even the numbers that tell the W's and L's with and without him?



> When asked why he took so many threes in his last year with the Cetlics before K-Mart beat him up and took his lunch money, Walker replied, 'Because they don't have any fours."
> 
> That sums up Antoine's love of the three. Don't blame anyone but him.


That wasn't before "K-Mart beat him up and took his lunch money" on a bruised knee, it was during the season. Antoine Walker has been with the same coaches for most of his amature and pro career. He was brought up to play one style of basketball for the last 13 years (excluding the last 2). Does your style change overnight? One doesn't give up a habbit (good or bad) in just a matter of seconds. If they did this world would be a much better place.


----------



## Causeway

aquaitious said:


> Even the numbers that tell the W's and L's with and without him?
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't before "K-Mart beat him up and took his lunch money" on a bruised knee, it was during the season. Antoine Walker has been with the same coaches for most of his amature and pro career. He was brought up to play one style of basketball for the last 13 years (excluding the last 2). Does your style change overnight? One doesn't give up a habbit (good or bad) in just a matter of seconds. If they did this world would be a much better place.


Excuses excuses excuses...

again no matter how you slice it - it adds up to a negative. Blame whatever you want but Walker has serious and fatal flaws.


----------



## agoo

I think the wins and losses stat that aqua pointed out is a positive of Antoine Walker.


----------



## Causeway

agoo101284 said:


> I think the wins and losses stat that aqua pointed out is a positive of Antoine Walker.


If Walker could play smart I think he could help the Celtics get some W's - or any team for that matter. But he was onle here for less than 30 regular season games plus 7 post-season games. in that short time he regressed back to the real Walker. That guy does not help the W's. It's a negative.


----------



## aquaitious

Causeway said:


> Excuses excuses excuses...
> 
> again no matter how you slice it - it adds up to a negative. Blame whatever you want but Walker has serious and fatal flaws.



Good to know that facts are now excuses.

And yea wining the Atlantic, while being on a 11-1 run is really a negative. I wish that never happened.


----------



## Causeway

aquaitious said:


> Good to know that facts are now excuses.
> 
> And yea wining the Atlantic, while being on a 11-1 run is really a negative. I wish that never happened.


I was replying to what you wrote below - where in that did you mention the Atlantic? You wrote:



> That wasn't before "K-Mart beat him up and took his lunch money" on a bruised knee, it was during the season. Antoine Walker has been with the same coaches for most of his amature and pro career. He was brought up to play one style of basketball for the last 13 years (excluding the last 2). Does your style change overnight? One doesn't give up a habbit (good or bad) in just a matter of seconds. If they did this world would be a much better place.


Using his past coaches etc. to me is an excuse for the FACT that he is a poor player - yes.

And you are twisting my words. I never said winning the Atlantic was a negative. But if there IS a negative in that - it's that people think becuase we won the Atlantice we should keep Walker. Yes he helped the Celtics go on a nice run. That has been noted many many many times in here. But more importantly when it counted - he showed who he really is. Personnaly I'd rather win a playoff series or even a BANNER. It's nice but the Celtics don't hang Atlantic banners in the rafters - nor should they.


----------



## Causeway

And for those who keep knocking Raef when bringing up the first Walker trade - there are 2 Celtics in the top 50 for 2004 Regular Season Efficiency Rating. 

Paul Pierce and Raef.

Walker is not even close to top 50.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

Causeway said:


> to me is an excuse for the FACT that he is a poor player - yes.



can you give me a list of any other "poor players" that avg 20-9-4 for their career???


----------



## agoo

Causeway said:


> And for those who keep knocking Raef when bringing up the first Walker trade - there are 2 Celtics in the top 50 for 2004 Regular Season Efficiency Rating.
> 
> Paul Pierce and Raef.
> 
> Walker is not even close to top 50.


Raef is a good player for Mark Blount's contract. However, his contract is quite a bit larger, which is why we're complaining about Raef. Its not him as a player.


----------



## Causeway

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> can you give me a list of any other "poor players" that avg 20-9-4 for their career???


I prefer wins to stats. I'd also prefer players that make the team better rather than worrying about keeping their 20/9/4 average to get a contract or an allstar bid. And to get his 20 he takes too many shots. I'd rather he took less shots and got less points and hit the boards more.


----------



## agoo

Causeway said:


> I prefer wins to stats.


Oh, so you do like Walker then?



> I'd also prefer players that make the team better rather than worrying about keeping their 20/9/4 average to get a contract or an allstar bid. And to get his 20 he takes too many shots. I'd rather he took less shots and got less points and hit the boards more.


Ok, now I'm confused.


----------



## E.H. Munro

Premier said:


> Why take on Raef's contract when Antoine expires in two years _and is the best player in the deal_? Tony Allen isn't going to be better than Antoine is/was. Same applies for Delonte West, but to include _both_ of them while arguing the first deal is wrong. Sure, we got Chris Mills, but was Ainge planning on acquiring Detroit's pick by trading him to Atlanta at the time of the original deal? I'm sorry, but you cannot judge the first Walker trade by the lucky transactions Ainge made later on. This first deal was horrible, but from that point on, Ainge has been terrific.


In fairness to Ainge, he was under strict orders to cut the payroll by five to six million dollars. The projections for 2003-04 were that NBA salaries would be over the 61.1% luxury tax threshold set by the CBA, and the best estimates had it kicking in at $54.5-$56 million. Going into the season the Celtics' payroll was closer to $63 million. The owners had no intention of spending $70-$72 million to field a team given their revenue stream. That was the main reason that Ainge rejected better offers (from a talent perspective) from Chicago & New York for Walker. 

The key to the Dallas deal wasn't Lafrentz, the low first round pick, or Jiri Welsch, it was Chris Mills' contract. Because he was permanently out with injury, insurance paid 80% of his $6.5 million, and when calculating the luxury tax, insurance money is free. So, while Mills counted $6.5 million against the cap, he counted only 1.3 million for luxury tax purposes, a projected savings of about $10.4 million (as the tax is one to one over the threshold). Ainge obviously tipped his hand, or else Nelson guessed what the situation was, because Dallas shafted Ainge for Mills. They refused to give up their two talented young wings (Daniels & Howard), they would only offer up Welsch and a low first. As it was the best he could do Ainge took it because he needed the insurance covered contract. Later in the year, when the owners managed to weasel out of the Baker deal, they gave Ainge a green light to trade Mills' contract because the Baker buyout had significantly slashed the long term payroll. So Ainge made what he could from the contract. But you're right, in no way did they need to trade Walker to get two low first round picks. The fact is that the three choices in front of Boston were given away (New Jersey sold theirs to Portland outright, while Utah and Denver traded their choices away for future firsts). So claiming that trading Walker was a necessity to acquire West is a little disingenuous. They could have had Nelson just as cheaply, and frankly he's better than West.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

Causeway said:


> I prefer wins to stats.



hey me 2...thats why i like walker...please see the record we had with him and the record without him...hey how about that less than a .500 team without him and a .667 team with him...o but no i would have rather seen the celts stay below .500 all year and not even make the playoffs than seen walker come back and us win the atlantic an be involved in a very competitive playoff series that went 7 games


----------



## LX

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> hey me 2...thats why i like walker...please see the record we had with him and the record without him...hey how about that less than a .500 team without him and a .667 team with him...o but no i would have rather seen the celts stay below .500 all year and not even make the playoffs than seen walker come back and us win the atlantic an be involved in a very competitive playoff series that went 7 games


Wrong. The Celtics were 13-11 with Antoine Walker. 

2-4 in the playoffs with Antoine. 

http://82games.com/04BOS11A.HTM


----------



## Causeway

agoo101284 said:


> Oh, so you do like Walker then?
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, now I'm confused.


What's confusing? Walker does not equal more wins for the Celtics in the long run - or when it counts in the playoffs. As noted above - 2-4 in the playoffs this season with Walker. If all we were looking at was how many points Walker (on many shots) gets or Allstar appearances in the past than we are not the Celtics. 



> hey how about that less than a .500 team without him and a .667 team with him.


#1AntoineWalkerFan please tell me the new math you are using that gives you .667 on 13-11.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

Causeway said:


> #1AntoineWalkerFan please tell me the new math you are using that gives you .667 on 13-11.



13-11??? how about the math ur using buddy...we were 21-13 after walker came back...we went 11-1 the first 12 games how do u figure we went 13-11 with him...21-13 is a .62 winning percentage...and if u dont count the 2 games that we didnt care about winning at the end of the season it ends up being a .66 wining percentage


----------



## LX

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> 13-11??? how about the math ur using buddy...we were 21-13 after walker came back...we went 11-1 the first 12 games how do u figure we went 13-11 with him...21-13 is a .62 winning percentage...and if u dont count the 2 games that we didnt care about winning at the end of the season it ends up being a .66 wining percentage


Wrong again. 

How is it possible for the Celtics to be 21-13 when Walker came back, when Walker only played 24 games for the Celtics?


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

Lanteri said:


> Wrong again.
> 
> How is it possible for the Celtics to be 21-13 when Walker came back, when Walker only played 24 games for the Celtics?



NOT wrong and never have been so u cant say again :biggrin: 

i am counting the playoff games...i may be a littile off...he played 6 playoff games and he missed a couple of the regular season games..so in effect we were 21-13 AFTER he came back...but he only played in 30 of those 34 games



either way 13-11 is COMPLETELY wrong


----------



## Premier

Thanks for clearing that up, ehnumro. It does make the deal a little better, but then essentially Antoine Walker was a luxury-tax dump. So, the blame (mostly) falls to Wyc and the other owners. A group that paid 360M for the team shouldn't be so shy to pay an extra one or so million dollars to make the team better. A better way to clear salary, in my opinion, is if we gave up Antoine for an expiring contract of the same value comprimising some of our talent/picks.


----------



## LX

With the playoff games he played 30. 

18-12 the Celtics were after he came back. The 82games website was wrong. That's 60%, including the playoffs. 29-29 before him. If I did my math correctly that is. So we improved from .500 to .600. 

Nonetheless I still think the streak was a mix of Walker, and the fact that the strength of schedule over that period of time for the Celtics was weak. The Celtics posted 10 wins agains teams under .500 over the course of Walker's 24 games. The Celtics were 6-10 against teams over .500 (including the 4 losses vs. the Pacers). Sure we won, but we won vs. weaker teams. Sure we beat the Rockets, Pistons, Heat, Wizards, and the Suns, but you can't credit that all to Walker. The Pistons game we won in spite of Walker's horrid play. 

In other words, I'm not saying that we would have finished at 45-37 on the season, but I am fairly certain that without Walker, and the fact that the schedule was painfully easy, the Celtics probably could have finished around .500 at 41-41 or 42-40. Still a vast improvement from last season.

In any case, the biggest improvement I saw in the trade for Walker was that we were able to dump Yogi Stewart and Tom Guggliota onto the Hawks.

off topic: Even if my opinions suck, you can't say it doesn't keep the conversation going :clown:


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

Lanteri said:


> With the playoff games he played 30.
> 
> 18-12 the Celtics were after he came back. The 82games website was wrong. That's 60%, including the playoffs. 29-29 before him. If I did my math correctly that is. So we improved from .500 to .600.
> 
> In other words, I'm not saying that we would have finished at 45-37 on the season, but I am fairly certain that without Walker, and the fact that the schedule was painfully easy, the Celtics probably could have finished around .500 at 41-41 or 42-40. Still a vast improvement from last season.



firat of all .600 is MUCH better than .500 in basketball...thats a difference of 49 wins instead of 41...and yes you say the schedule was easy but dont forget how crappy we played against bad teams earlier in the season


and we werre 27-28 before walker came back...not 29-29...he missed 3 reg season games wit the injury and played in 24...thats 27...82-27=55 in the first 55 games we were 27-28


----------



## LX

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> firat of all .600 is MUCH better than .500 in basketball...thats a difference of 49 wins instead of 41...and yes you say the schedule was easy but dont forget how crappy we played against bad teams earlier in the season
> 
> 
> and we werre 27-28 before walker came back...not 29-29...he missed 3 reg season games wit the injury and played in 24...thats 27...82-27=55 in the first 55 games we were 27-28


Close enough. :banana:


----------



## E.H. Munro

Causeway said:


> #1AntoineWalkerFan please tell me the new math you are using that gives you .667 on 13-11.


You would think that edit would remember to check the numbers of a confirmed Walker hater like Lanteri. Prior to Walker's arrival Boston was 27-28, after his return he missed three games with a knee bruise, during which Boston went 2-1, bringing the record to 29-29 without Walker in the lineup. So, if the Celtics went 13-11 in games that Walker played, that means that their year ending record was 42-40. As Philadelphia finished the year 43-39, are you implying that Boston won the Atlantic Division on an accounting error? By my count they were 16-8 with Walker in the regular season. By my math that's .667, by yours it's apparently .542. edit :biggrin:

-aqua


----------



## agoo

ehmunro said:


> You would think that a edit would remember to check the numbers of a confirmed Walker hater like Lanteri. Prior to Walker's arrival Boston was 27-28, after his return he missed three games with a knee bruise, during which Boston went 2-1, bringing the record to 29-29 without Walker in the lineup. So, if the Celtics went 13-11 in games that Walker played, that means that their year ending record was 42-40. As Philadelphia finished the year 43-39, are you implying that Boston won the Atlantic Division on an accounting error? By my count they were 16-8 with Walker in the regular season. By my math that's .667, by yours it's apparently .542. edit :biggrin:


Now now, as a public school student, I think my maff skills are quite good.


----------



## Causeway

ehmunro said:


> You would think that a edit would remember to check the numbers of a confirmed edit like Lanteri. Prior to Walker's arrival Boston was 27-28, after his return he missed three games with a knee bruise, during which Boston went 2-1, bringing the record to 29-29 without Walker in the lineup. So, if the Celtics went 13-11 in games that Walker played, that means that their year ending record was 42-40. As Philadelphia finished the year 43-39, are you implying that Boston won the Atlantic Division on an accounting error? By my count they were 16-8 with Walker in the regular season. By my math that's .667, by yours it's apparently .542. edit :biggrin:


Funny how the edit can use terms like "edit" etc. and it's cool - and I say wise guy and it gets edited.

Anyway - my bad on the 13-11. Haste makes waste.

It still does not change the fact that in the playoffs when it counted we were 2-4 with Walker on the floor including a game 7 blowout loss at home. 

Or the fact that he can't make a layup. Or a free throw - never mind get to the line. 

And yes - I went to public school. edit


----------



## P-Dub34

Well, another thread goes to Walker. Guy's making headlines around here. I hope he proves us "edit" (I don't hate Walker at all, I just don't think he's best for this team) completely wrong if we re-sign him. I hope #1AWF makes me eat my words come next year. 

In other news, I have him on my NBA Live '05 team, and he kicks ***. Guy's a beast. I hear in Live '06, when Walker gets the ball he immediately fires up a shot. There's no button you can press to stop it, just as soon as he touches the ball it gets fired up. Developers say that it will be frustrating for Celtic fans but in order to realistically simulate the game, there's no way that a human controlled Walker could possibly take enough misguided shots. Cool feature.

Point is, I don't get why people keep getting upset at Causeway. He has a different opinion than you. Does that warrant personal attacks at his intelligence? Come on guys...


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

P-Dub34 said:


> Well, another thread goes to Walker. Guy's making headlines around here. I hope he proves us "Walker haters" (I don't hate Walker at all, I just don't think he's best for this team) completely wrong if we re-sign him. I hope #1AWF makes me eat my words come next year.
> 
> In other news, I have him on my NBA Live '05 team, and he kicks ***. Guy's a beast. I hear in Live '06, when Walker gets the ball he immediately fires up a shot. There's no button you can press to stop it, just as soon as he touches the ball it gets fired up. Developers say that it will be frustrating for Celtic fans but in order to realistically simulate the game, there's no way that a human controlled Walker could possibly take enough misguided shots. Cool feature.
> 
> Point is, I don't get why people keep getting upset at Causeway. He has a different opinion than you. Does that warrant personal attacks at his intelligence? Come on guys...



i never have made a personal attack on him...at least if i have it has been an accident and im sorry

but...what i cant understand is that someone who claims to watch all of the celtics games should have automatically known that a number like 13-11 with walker was wrong...every celtic fan and their grandmother knew that as soon as walker came back we went 11-1...so when someone posts something like that i get suspicious...


----------



## Causeway

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> i never have made a personal attack on him...at least if i have it has been an accident and im sorry
> 
> but...what i cant understand is that someone who claims to watch all of the celtics games should have automatically known that a number like 13-11 with walker was wrong...every celtic fan and their grandmother knew that as soon as walker came back we went 11-1...so when someone posts something like that i get suspicious...


Someone in here posted 13-11 and I jumped on it. I already said my bad.
And we have been over the 11-1 run MANY MANY times. While it was nice it's inflated. And this keeps getting tossed around as the reason Walker is good for Boston. Many of those teams were below .500. Before Walker came back it was obvious that the end of the season sched. was in Bostons favor. Also already noted was that while we did beat some excellent teams in that time - it was in spite of Walker.

In addition everyone and their Grandmother knows Walker can not get to the line. Or hit half his FT's. Or make a layup. etc. So your blind defense of Walker makes me suspicious.


----------



## P-Dub34

I was referring more to Ehmunro's comment about public schooling. I'm not sure if it was meant in jest but it seems that Causeway took it as an insult.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

P-Dub34 said:


> I was referring more to Ehmunro's comment about public schooling. I'm not sure if it was meant in jest but it seems that Causeway took it as an insult.



ahhh i c...i thought that was a joke...i mean i went to public school too and i think my math skills are beyond amazing :biggrin:


----------



## Truth34

P-Dub, thank you for trying to keep this civil. 

I'm with Causeway all the way. You can keep the prep schoolers like Grousbeck and Gaston and give me the public schoolers like Auerbach and Ainge. They know basketball.

I think the .600 record was eclipsed by the 2-4 playoff record with Antoine.

P-Dub's thread about the Live 06 thing was hilarious!

If Antoine will take MLE and maybe play less minutes, he is a great addition. If not, let him go! 

Can we now talk about something else?


----------



## SamIam

Lanteri said:


> 18-12 the Celtics were after he came back. :


Thank you Yoda! Begun the clone wars have.


----------



## SamIam

So to sum up:

11-1 when Walker was just trying to fit in and not do too much.
7-11 once he was reestablished as a team leader.

12 games of "Good Antoine" in how many seasons?

We all know Antoine has the talent to be a difference maker. The problem is that he isn't content being a team player like Ben Wallace. He needs his 20 shots per game. He is so talented that shots come easy to him - unlike Paul who has to work like a dog to get a shot. Unfortunately, once the shot is there.... he has not shot. Maybe if he develops that little hook shot in the post in the off season it can become his "go to" shot.

If he could accept that he is a supremely talented guy who must focus on rebounds and garbage points to succeed we would have a fantastic player. I believe he will eventually get there. I hope it is in Boston.


----------



## Causeway

SamIam said:


> So to sum up:
> 
> 11-1 when Walker was just trying to fit in and not do too much.
> 7-11 once he was reestablished as a team leader.
> 
> 12 games of "Good Antoine" in how many seasons?
> 
> We all know Antoine has the talent to be a difference maker. The problem is that he isn't content being a team player like Ben Wallace. He needs his 20 shots per game. He is so talented that shots come easy to him - unlike Paul who has to work like a dog to get a shot. Unfortunately, once the shot is there.... he has not shot. Maybe if he develops that little hook shot in the post in the off season it can become his "go to" shot.
> 
> If he could accept that he is a supremely talented guy who must focus on rebounds and garbage points to succeed we would have a fantastic player. I believe he will eventually get there. I hope it is in Boston.


Well said. I personally don't see Walker realizing that his path to success is though being a "roll" player who should focus on rebounds and garbage points. But if he stays in GREEN I'd love to be proven wrong. So far nothing in his NBA career has shown that he's willing or able to change. As noted 12 games out of many hundreds does not equal a man who gets it. But again if he sticks around it'd be fantastic if I was wrong.

Having said that I honestly think he won't be back in the fall.


----------



## E.H. Munro

P-Dub34 said:


> I was referring more to Ehmunro's comment about public schooling. I'm not sure if it was meant in jest but it seems that Causeway took it as an insult.


Well, of course he took it as an insult, he's a edit :biggrin:

I'm an agnostic, there are things he does well, and things he doesn't. He's actually fairly coachable, and if the Celtics did resign him Doc would need to lay down some guidelines for him. For one, no shooting off the dribble past 16'-18'. For another, no shooting when not facing the backboard. I don't know whether it's a depth perception problem or what, but he's hopeless from the baseline (seriously, even bunnies clang when he shoots them from the baseline). He also needs to seriously train, he lost weight going into last year, but it was nutritionally (as Big Al did during his senior year in high school) and not with serious weight training (a la Big Perky).


----------



## Causeway

ehmunro said:


> Well, of course he took it as an insult, he's a edit. :biggrin:


edit


----------



## E.H. Munro

How dare you accuse me of having an affair with your pet Rottweiler? :curse:


----------



## Causeway

edit


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

did anyone here really watch the series against indiana??...people keep saying "we were 2-4 in the playoffs with antoine"...how about what in those 4 losses ricky was 13-40 from the field...if ricky played liek he did during the regular season and didnt choke for most of the playoffs maybe we arent talking about a first round departure now...if ricky even showed up to the gym for ONE of those games i know for a fact we wouldve moved on...lets not throw all the blame on toine now...


----------



## Causeway

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> did anyone here really watch the series against indiana??...people keep saying "we were 2-4 in the playoffs with antoine"...how about what in those 4 losses ricky was 13-40 from the field...if ricky played liek he did during the regular season and didnt choke for most of the playoffs maybe we arent talking about a first round departure now...if ricky even showed up to the gym for ONE of those games i know for a fact we wouldve moved on...lets not throw all the blame on toine now...


So for the 11-1 run and winning the Atlantic - Walker gets the credit.
But for playoff losses he does not get blame? I am not saying the losses were all Walker. There was plenty of blame to go around - and not just to Ricky Davis. Many key players and Doc get a nice hunk as well.

But I think Walker gets too much credit for the nice run at the end of the season. And if he's going to get all that credit - then he gets blame for the collapse when it counted.


----------



## E.H. Munro

Causeway said:


> edit



Well, I will admit to dropping out in the 80s, but I was a socialist in those days and felt like hitchhiking across the US. I never made it further than New York at the time. But the drinking and recreational sex there was too much fun. Eventually I came back to Boston. Now, what does my dropping out of society have to do with anything?


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

Causeway said:


> But I think Walker gets too much credit for the nice run at the end of the season. And if he's going to get all that credit - then he gets blame for the collapse when it counted.



ok...then it goes both ways...you give walker very little credit for the nice run...saying we played weak teams...so then u have to give him very little of the blame for the collapse...am i wrong?


----------



## aquaitious

Premier said:


> Let's try to keep this disscussion, which has been excellent by the way, civil and mature. Refrain from stooping down to personal attacks, no matter how elusive they might be.



Sure some of those insults are funny, (lol) but please try to restrain yourselves from them.

Check out my post below for a friendly instult directed at Agoo, for example.


----------



## aquaitious

agoo101284 said:


> Now now, as a public school student, I think my *maff* skills are quite good.



Too bad the English skills never caught up.


----------



## E.H. Munro

That was the point of agoo's riposte. :razz:

And since when is "Walker hater" a personal attack? The man quite clearly indicated that he does indeed hate Walker. Does Lanteri take the term as a personal insult? Does TradeLastLaugh get insulted when I refer to his Pierce hate? It's simply a fact, man. You should make it a point to get more wacky tabacky in your diet, you'd be much mellower.


----------



## aquaitious

ehmunro said:


> That was the point of agoo's riposte. :razz:
> 
> And since when is "Walker hater" a personal attack? The man quite clearly indicated that he does indeed hate Walker. Does Lanteri take the term as a personal insult? Does TradeLastLaugh get insulted when I refer to his Pierce hate? It's simply a fact, man. You should make it a point to get more wacky tabacky in your diet, you'd be much mellower.


It divides people into two groups, the "Walker Lovers" and the "Walker Haters"...Some people (in the past) found it offensive (if I remember correctly).


----------



## P-Dub34

#1AWF, I've said it before that it's not 100% on Walker that we lost. I've noted that Ricky only showed up for a few games, Blount didn't play, Payton had a bad showing all around, Raef didn't do much offensively after Game 1, and Paul had some rough moments as well. Personally, when we were struggling and guys like Walker and Davis weren't hitting shots, I would've liked to see the ball in Paul's hands more. Guy shot 50% for the series. Would've loved to see him in the 20's for FGAT's. We just didn't get him the ball and let him do his thing enough, IMO.

Multiple goat's for the Pacers series.


----------



## Causeway

ehmunro said:


> That was the point of agoo's riposte. :razz:
> 
> And since when is "Walker hater" a personal attack? The man quite clearly indicated that he does indeed hate Walker. Does Lanteri take the term as a personal insult? Does TradeLastLaugh get insulted when I refer to his Pierce hate? It's simply a fact, man. You should make it a point to get more wacky tabacky in your diet, you'd be much mellower.


It's not just that it's a personal attack. It's just a weak and lazy argument. Basically it's saying "forget about the fact that he can't hit a layup or a free throw or get to the line - you are just hate the guy". 

Again I don't hate Walker. I don't know him. I do hate that he is on the Celtics though.

As far as the smoking dope advice - thanks. I'll make my own drug decisions.


----------



## Causeway

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> ok...then it goes both ways...you give walker very little credit for the nice run...saying we played weak teams...so then u have to give him very little of the blame for the collapse...am i wrong?


Sort of. I give him some credit - just not as much as you. There were many weak teams and some excellent teams. I think Walker did have an effect in that run. He was playing well and the way I'd like to see him play. Less shots. Less ball handeling. More ball movement. More rebounds. I also think Walker coming back had the initial effect of getting guys energized and excited. However that faded - as did Walkers play. Whatever the reasons are - Walker regressed in the playoffs to the player he has been most of his career. But no - the playoff loss does not fall entirely on Walkers shoulders. As far as Walker in the playoffs I mostly blame Doc. When it was clear Walker had regressed Doc should have sat him.


----------



## P-Dub34

Causeway said:


> As far as Walker in the playoffs I mostly blame Doc. When it was clear Walker had regressed Doc should have sat him.


Speaking of Doc, Rick Carlisle made him look like a little league coach that series.


----------



## E.H. Munro

aquaitious said:


> It divides people into two groups, the "Walker Lovers" and the "Walker Haters"...Some people (in the past) found it offensive (if I remember correctly).


What about we agnostics? :razz:

And the only people that could find that term offensive are Walker haters, Pierce haters are less rabid and have more pride. :biggrin:


----------



## E.H. Munro

Causeway said:


> It's not just that it's a personal attack. It's just a weak and lazy argument. Basically it's saying "forget about the fact that he can't hit a layup or a free throw or get to the line - you are just hate the guy".


You'd long since lost the argument by then, though.  



Causeway said:


> I do hate that he is on the Celtics though.


Which pretty well seals the point.



Causeway said:


> As far as the smoking dope advice - thanks. I'll make my own drug decisions.


Well, the advice wasn't given to you, and I'm not certain that mild drugs like pot would help. You might need massive doses of halcion. :biggrin:


----------



## Causeway

ehmunro said:


> You'd long since lost the argument by then, though.


To posters like you who like to throw around terms like "Walker Hater" when you have run out of facts to make a point - it may be an "argument". To me it's sports debate.



ehmunro said:


> Which pretty well seals the point.


Not liking that a player is on your team - and hating the guy - are different. Less dope and you may get that.





ehmunro said:


> Well, the advice wasn't given to you, and I'm not certain that mild drugs like pot would help. You might need massive doses of halcion. :biggrin:


Sorry don't know what halcion is but thanks again for drug references.


----------



## E.H. Munro

Causeway said:


> To posters like you who like to throw around terms like "Walker Hater" when you have run out of facts to make a point - it may be an "argument". To me it's sports debate.


Like the "fact" that Boston was 13-11 with Walker in the lineup? I'm an APBR member, I use stats and use them well, and I make a point of using advanced comparitive stats over misleading gross numbers. And I try to doublecheck them before posting. Would that more posters could say the same.



Causeway said:


> Not liking that a player is on your team - and hating the guy - are different. Less dope and you may get that.


It's a difference without effect, i.e. "I don't hate the guy, I just don't want him on my team, and will post reply after reply expressing this opinion twisting the facts to support my premise that player X is the antichrist and must be exorcised from the team."


----------



## Causeway

ehmunro said:


> Like the "fact" that Boston was 13-11 with Walker in the lineup? I'm an APBR member, I use stats and use them well, and I make a point of using advanced comparitive stats over misleading gross numbers. And I try to doublecheck them before posting. Would that more posters could say the same.


Nothing like beating a dead horse - again. 
And I am not impressed that you are a member of the American Pit Bull Registry. Don't pretent you meant the Association for Professional Basketball Research.



ehmunro said:


> It's a difference without effect, i.e. "I don't hate the guy, I just don't want him on my team, and will post reply after reply expressing this opinion twisting the facts to support my premise that player X is the antichrist and must be exorcised from the team."


Right. I said he's "the antichrist and must be exorcised from the team". Yet another nice fact. Keep posting reply after reply on your drug advice. That's good hoops talk.


----------



## E.H. Munro

Causeway said:


> Nothing like beating a dead horse - again.
> Don't pretent you meant the Association for Professional Basketball Research.


I'm not "pretenting" anything, whatever "pretenting" might be.


----------



## Causeway

Can you please explain to me the purpose of this post? Let me remind you that personal attacks will _not_ be tolerated. This is your first warning before consequences ensue.

- Premier


----------



## E.H. Munro

Well, as I am not a prep school snob, and being as cool as a Johnny Walker chest at a Kennedy family picnic (and thus with no need to "attempt to sound cool"), I guess I was right. Not that there's any surprise in that.


----------



## SamIam

ehmunro said:


> I was a socialist in those days and felt like hitchhiking across the US. I never made it further than New York at the time.


What a big surprise that is! Based on your posts I suspect that nobody could last longer than 20 minutes..... 

... sorry er... but this is my exit... gotta go!


----------



## E.H. Munro

SamIam said:


> I suspect that nobody could last longer than 20 minutes.....


Well, we didn't have viagra back in the 80s, so it was a problem.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

what has this thread turned into?


----------



## Causeway

Premier said:


> Can you please explain to me the purpose of this post? Let me remind you that personal attacks will _not_ be tolerated. This is your first warning before consequences ensue.
> 
> - Premier


First of all I will from here on out stay away from getting personal. I came to this board as a Celtic fan to discuss the Celtics.

But if you'd like me to explain that post that you edited - here it is:

The prep school comment was in response to ehmunro claiming that I must have gone to public school due to an error - seemed like a personal attack that was not edited.

The drug comment was in response to ehmunro suggesting multiple times that I take drugs - seemed like a personal attack that was not edited.

The spelling comment was in response to ehmunro spell checking my post and calling me on a typo. ditto above.

Back on topic - the first Walker trade by Ainge was fantastic.


----------



## Truth34

*I'm with you Causeway*

The first Walker trade by Ainge WAS fantastic.

Danny's objective was to build a talent base, and with Delonte, Tony Allen and another future first + Raef he improved the talent base.

And I hope he does again this offseason.

In Danny We Trust.


----------



## Premier

*Re: I'm with you Causeway*

Antoine Walker, *in my opinion*, is better than the combined production (relative to the amount of playing time/touches) of Raef LaFrentz, Delonte West, Tony Allen, and potentially a future first-round selection even though I believe that the aforementioned players besides LaFrentz cannot be mentioned when being critical of the deal (as the deal was Walker and Tony Delk for LaFrentz, a first-round selection (Delonte West), the expiring contract of Chris Mills (which was very valuable as insurance paid for most of it so we were able to get under the luxury tax limit _and_ have a very valuable trading commodity) and Jiri Welsch).

Edit: fixed a factual error. Thanks Truth34.


----------



## Truth34

Premier, 

Dont' forget the expiring contract of Chris Mills when you mention the deal.


Oh, and let me just say, once and for all, if Antoine is willing to take a 50-60% pay cut and play reduced minutes and buy into the system, I hope we re-sign him.

If not, this chapter is closed and we move on with the young frontcourt.

Either way, I will still be a Celtics fan!


----------



## Premier

Truth34 said:


> Either way, I will still be a Celtics fan!


...and this is universal for (most) Boston Celtics fans even if they continue to bicker about Antoine Walker related topics.


----------



## P-Dub34

> Oh, and let me just say, once and for all, if Antoine is willing to take a 50-60% pay cut and play reduced minutes and buy into the system, I hope we re-sign him.


Couldn't have said it better myself.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

P-Dub34 said:


> Couldn't have said it better myself.



50-60% pay cut...so basically you guys want to give him mark blount money...theres no way hed take it and he shouldnt...he means much more to this team than blount...he should get around 9 million a year imo


----------



## E.H. Munro

Truth34 said:


> Premier,
> 
> Dont' forget the expiring contract of Chris Mills when you mention the deal.


That was the real point of the deal, lowering their luxury tax payment. If they had managed to get Josh Howard (rather than Jiri & and a low first round pick) it would have been a very good deal. Josh Howard _and_ the number one and it would have been a great deal.



Truth34 said:


> Oh, and let me just say, once and for all, if Antoine is willing to take a 50-60% pay cut and play reduced minutes and buy into the system, I hope we re-sign him.
> 
> If not, this chapter is closed and we move on with the young frontcourt.
> 
> Either way, I will still be a Celtics fan!


I'd be OK with the signing of Antoine, presuming that someone there had archived footage of his good games during the Pitino years, just so that Doc could get a handle on how Walker _can_ play and works on keeping him out of his danger zones (shooting off the dribble from long range, shooting when not facing the backboard, etc.).


----------



## P-Dub34

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> 50-60% pay cut...so basically you guys want to give him mark blount money...


I'd love to see Antoine in the $7M range and I think that's all DA will throw at him.



> theres no way hed take it and he shouldnt...he means much more to this team than blount...he should get around 9 million a year imo


9 mil is pushing it. It's no coincidence that Dallas and Atlanta were happy to be rid of him.

Speaking of Dallas, if Walker gave us what he gave them - that is, 14/8/5, on 14 FGAT's a game - I really couldn't complain. I'd love to see his FG% higher than it was that year (43%), but 14/8/5 on 14 shots (hopefully smart ones) would be just peachy with me.


----------



## agoo

Regardless of what we do with Walker, we still need a veteran big man, or else Blount will be getting a lot of minutes and Perk and Jefferson will be getting more than they can handle. I'd like Walker for that.


----------



## Causeway

> *and * play reduced minutes and buy into the system...


This to me is the key. How would Danny/Doc be able to get assurances from Walker that he'd be cool with this - especially the buying into the system part?


----------



## Truth34

Antoine Walker will never get $9 million in this league again, sorry to say, so I hope he managed his money well.

The most he will get is from Boston, and the maximum will probably be around $6-7 million a season.

What Mark Blount is making is irrelevant to this particular situation.


----------



## Premier

No, it isn't irrelevant as Antoine Walker can cite Mark Blount as a player (of way less talent, which again _is_ relevant) who would recieve similar money for much less production. In my opinion, Antoine gets atleast seven million dollars a year (average) and upwards to 8.5M.


----------



## Truth34

Care to make a wager on that?

All 30 GMs have access to videotape. The most he can get is from Boston, because nobody will offer more than the MLE.

Boston knows this, and won't offer much more than that. He'll get $7 million, tops.

I'll bet you 3500 points on this, if you like.

As for the Blount issue, it is NOT relevant. Should Al Jefferson get $14 million becuase he outplayed Antoine during parts of the playoffs? You get what you get based upon your PAST, and your market value, and what teams are willing to pay. There are many players better than Antoine who make less, but they're not going to get a raise because Antoine can't make a layup. Conversely, Antoine should not get more because he's better than Blount.


----------



## P-Dub34

Truth34 said:


> All 30 GMs have access to videotape. The most he can get is from Boston, because nobody will offer more than the MLE.


Somebody will be stupid enough to throw more than 7 at him.


----------



## Truth34

Nobody's that stupid. I got 3500 points that says he gets no more than seven.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

Truth34 said:


> Care to make a wager on that?
> 
> All 30 GMs have access to videotape. The most he can get is from Boston, because nobody will offer more than the MLE.
> 
> Boston knows this, and won't offer much more than that. He'll get $7 million, tops.



he was signed to an over 14 million dollar 1-yr contract less than a year ago...his value around the league is much more than what ur making it out to be...you dont go from a 14-15 million dollar player to a mle guy in one year...he should and will get around 9 mill a yr...hopefully from the celts...if he was so bad atlanta wouldnt have paid him so much to come there...and they traded him to save money not because he wasnt producing


----------



## P-Dub34

How did it save them money? We had to trade contracts (Googs, Stewart, and Payton) for Walker's contract. They did it becuase Walker didn't fit in with their long term plans and to get a draft pick.

And the Hawks didn't sign Walker for 14M last year, what are you thinking? He was traded for. 

From Boston.com: "Walker is in the final year of a six-year contract worth approximately $70 million he signed with the Celtics in 1999."

http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/celtics/articles/2005/02/25/green_wave/

So it's not like you said and his value has plummeted from one year ago being a 14M player. And your entire post revolves around Atlanta giving him 14M being proof that he's such a good player, and it is totally false. You'd think Antoine's #1 Fan would know when he signed a deal and at least research it beforehand so that his entire post wasn't based on something like that.


----------



## Truth34

#1 AW Fan, I am calling you out. If Antoine signs for more 8 million or more, I will donate 3500 points to your total. If he signs for less than 8 million, you donate 3500 to my total. 

Put your points where your mouth is.


----------



## P-Dub34

> If Antoine signs for more 8 million or more


A GM would have to be nuts to give Walker $8M, but I can certainly see it happening. If guys like LaFrentz and Tim Thomas can pull down 10 a year (haha, it's funny because I'm talking about his salary and his PPG), anybody can. 

But who really wants him all that badly? What team has a dire need for a PF who shoots low 40's and consistently displays atrocious decision making, especially after the playoff performance he had? See, the Celtics have nobody to fall back on at the PF position, really. Do any other teams in the A need a PF that badly so as to give Walker $8M plus? I see Danny sending a lowball offer his way and 'Toine rejecting it, to be honest.


----------



## Truth34

Look, we gave him 9 million a year, so yeah, you're right in that sense. 

Keep in mind, though, that Raef and TT were coming off good seasons and showed potential.

Antoine is pretty much a finished product. What you see is what you get. So no, he won't be getting the money from anybody. Isiah might be dumb enough to do it, but that would mean we would have to do a sign-and-trade with NY. What do they have Danny would want? The answer is...nothing.

If you want to take my wager, that's great. Otherwise, I'll wait for #1AWF.


----------



## P-Dub34

> If you want to take my wager, that's great. Otherwise, I'll wait for #1AWF.


Not only don't I have the requisite amount of points, but I'm not 100% certain (as AWF seems to be) that Walker will get it. Basically, what I'm saying is stranger things have happened, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he got over $7M.



> TT were coming off good seasons and showed potential.


Haha, Tim Thomas shows potential every season. Guy has skills. He just can't put it together, for whatever reason.


----------



## Truth34

Well, the only teams that have cap room (Hawks, Clippers, Bobcats, and a few others) will not offer him that money. So the other teams, in order to give him insane money would have to engineer a sign-and-trade to make it work.

The players they would be offering to get a player of Walker's stature would be cap killers.

Think Danny would be interested in taking on more dead salary (we're still paying Vin Baker like $5M a year)? Not likely. 

#1AWF, care to back up your assertions with the wager? If not, stop blasphemizing about Walker's value.


----------



## agoo

For the record, Atlanta acquired Walker simply to get his contract. They didn't care who they were playing 14 milion to, they just cared that they wouldn't have to do it after this season.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

Truth34 said:


> #1 AW Fan, I am calling you out. If Antoine signs for more 8 million or more, I will donate 3500 points to your total. If he signs for less than 8 million, you donate 3500 to my total.
> 
> Put your points where your mouth is.




no problem my man...hey if ur so confident lets make it 5000


----------



## Truth34

I only have 3600. Let's make it 4000; I should have it by then.

So here it is: Antoine signs for 8 million or more (first year of contract), I give you 4000.

Antoine signs for <8 million, I give you 4000.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

Truth34 said:


> I only have 3600. Let's make it 4000; I should have it by then.
> 
> So here it is: Antoine signs for 8 million or more (first year of contract), I give you 4000.
> 
> Antoine signs for <8 million, I give you 4000.




deal..or 8 million avg...like if he signs 5 yrs 40 mill and the first yr is 7.5 mill id win as well....does that work for u???


----------



## Truth34

Well, I don't think that would happen...typically, the contracts start somewhere and there are raises each year.

I could see him getting 7 the first year, 7.5, 8, etc.

The bet is the first year is less than 8....tell you what...I'll say that if his first year is 7.5 million or more, you win, 7.499 or less, I win, regardless of averages or number of years....


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

Truth34 said:


> Well, I don't think that would happen...typically, the contracts start somewhere and there are raises each year.
> 
> I could see him getting 7 the first year, 7.5, 8, etc.
> 
> The bet is the first year is less than 8....tell you what...I'll say that if his first year is 7.5 million or more, you win, 7.499 or less, I win, regardless of averages or number of years....




ur on mah man...u better get those points ready to donate :banana:


----------



## Truth34

It's more likely I will donate sperm, but you are on...and I am a man of my word, so I will do it if Wyc and Danny have a phlebotomy and do it....


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

Truth34 said:


> It's more likely I will donate sperm, but you are on...and I am a man of my word, so I will do it if Wyc and Danny have a phlebotomy and do it....



i am a man of my word as well...and if u want to put the stipulation in that if ur the loser u have to donate sperm too then we can do that as well lol


----------



## E.H. Munro

agoo101284 said:


> For the record, Atlanta acquired Walker simply to get his contract. They didn't care who they were playing 14 milion to, they just cared that they wouldn't have to do it after this season.


More specifically they acquired Walker as a means of unloading Jason Terry, and were willing to part with a Philadelphia first round pick to achieve that. Does that mean that Terry sucks?


----------



## Causeway

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> he was signed to an over 14 million dollar 1-yr contract less than a year ago...


he was???


----------



## P-Dub34

> he was???


I already covered it in a previous post:



> And the Hawks didn't sign Walker for 14M last year, what are you thinking? He was traded for.
> 
> From Boston.com: "Walker is in the final year of a six-year contract worth approximately $70 million he signed with the Celtics in 1999."
> 
> http://www.boston.com/sports/basket.../25/green_wave/
> 
> So it's not like you said and his value has plummeted from one year ago being a 14M player. And your entire post revolves around Atlanta giving him 14M being proof that he's such a good player, and it is totally false. You'd think Antoine's #1 Fan would know when he signed a deal and at least research it beforehand so that his entire post wasn't based on something like that.


----------



## Causeway

Funny how the self proclaimed #1 Antoine Walker fan was all over me for getting the Celtics w's and L's wrong after Walker came back - yet he throws out that Walker signed a 14 million $ one year contract with Atlanta as a basis for Walkers worth - and it's false.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

Causeway said:


> Funny how the self proclaimed #1 Antoine Walker fan was all over me for getting the Celtics w's and L's wrong after Walker came back - yet he throws out that Walker signed a 14 million $ one year contract with Atlanta as a basis for Walkers worth - and it's false.



wowwwww thats much different...ur a "self proclaimed" celtics fan and you couldnt realize that 13-11 was wrong?!...everybody thats a celtics fan...even my 4 yr old cousin...could have told you that those numbers were false...so i thought that walker signed a 1-yr deal with atlanta for 14 mill...my bad he had 1 yr left on his contract for 14 mill


----------



## Causeway

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> wowwwww thats much different...ur a "self proclaimed" celtics fan and you couldnt realize that 13-11 was wrong?!...everybody thats a celtics fan...even my 4 yr old cousin...could have told you that those numbers were false...so i thought that walker signed a 1-yr deal with atlanta for 14 mill...my bad he had 1 yr left on his contract for 14 mill


Much different? Being the self proclamed by name #1 Walker fan and not knowing that he did not sign a 14 million dollar contract last season? Using that false information as a basis for your argument? Take it like a man - you don't know your Walker facts. My 3 year old cousin knows that Walker was traded to Atlanta from Dallas with one year left on his contract.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

Causeway said:


> Much different? Being the self proclamed by name #1 Walker fan and not knowing that he did not sign a 14 million dollar contract last season? Using that false information as a basis for your argument? Take it like a man - you don't know your Walker facts. My 3 year old cousin knows that Walker was traded to Atlanta from Dallas with one year left on his contract.



would you liek me to tell u where he has birthmarks and how old he was when he had chicken pox??....just because im a walker fan doesnt mean i know everything...ive never claimed to know everything...so sue me


----------



## Causeway

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> would you liek me to tell u where he has birthmarks and how old he was when he had chicken pox??....just because im a walker fan doesnt mean i know everything...ive never claimed to know everything...so sue me


I messed up a fact and you were all over it. You do the same thing and its "so sue me"? Knowing that he did not sign a $14 million dollar contact last season (which I'd think would be big news) is more than if he had chicken pox. You also used this false information to make your point. So yes - if you used the "fact" that he has birthmarks or when he had chickenpox to make a point - it'd be fair game.


----------



## Truth34

Guys, Guys....

Let's move on. 

If Walker re-signs, we all support him and the Celtics.

If not, we all support the Celtics, and those that don't want to can follow Antoine's new team. 

Agreed?


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

Truth34 said:


> Guys, Guys....
> 
> Let's move on.
> 
> If Walker re-signs, we all support him and the Celtics.
> 
> If not, we all support the Celtics, and those that don't want to can follow Antoine's new team.
> 
> Agreed?


agreed


----------



## P-Dub34

For the record, I wasn't trying to be a jerk...I thought it sounded fishy that Walker had just signed with the Hawks and was sure he had an exisiting contract, so I had to do some research. I dissected AWF's post for the sake of good argument, not to insult anyone. Sorry if I started this.



> If Walker re-signs, we all support him and the Celtics.


If he doesn't change his play, I'll be riding him all. year. long. Count on it.


----------



## aquaitious

Truth34 said:


> I only have 3600. Let's make it 4000; I should have it by then.
> 
> So here it is: Antoine signs for 8 million or more (first year of contract), I give you 4000.
> 
> Antoine signs for <8 million, I give you 4000.



Now you got 5000. Man, wouldn't it be nice if someone made a vBookie uCash bet, eh?

Oh wait. 

Yes I am the :devil:


----------

