# Ainge, the roster and what we had/have



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

It seems like since the recent Walker trade and the "major" signing of Scabs there are people who think the sky is falling. So now might be a good time to recap the roster we had when Ainge arrived and what we have now. 

*Here is what Danny was handed:*

4 Tony Battie C 
8 Antoine Walker PF
55 Eric Williams SF
34 Paul Pierce SG
7 Tony Delk PG

30 Mark Blount C
42 Vin Baker F
0 Walter McCarty SF/PF 
5 Kedrick Brown SF
9 J.R. Bremer PG
41 Bruno Sundov C
Ruben Wolkowyski C
11 Mark Bryant PF
43 Grant Long PF
12 Bimbo Coles PG

This is a link to all of Ainge's moves since he took over:

http://www.hoopshype.com/general_managers/danny_ainge.htm

*Here is the roster as it stands today:*

34 Paul Pierce F-G 
42 Tony Allen G 
11 Marcus Banks G 
30 Mark Blount C 
45 Raef LaFrentz F/C
12 Ricky Davis F 
7 Al Jefferson F 
13 Delonte West G 


43 Kendrick Perkins C 
9 Justin Reed F 6-8 
Qyntel Woods F 
Curtis Borchardt C 
Brian Scalabrine F 
Ryan Gomes F 
Gerald Green G-F 
Orien Greene G 
20 Gary Payton (Free agent)

--

So the first question is who from the first list would you want back? I know people in here pine for Walter for whatever reason. And Walker is Walker - you love him or hate him but either way I don't think he's suited as the #1 or #2 guy on your team to get a banner. But what about the rest. And once you get past the not so impressive starting 5 it gets very ugly. 

Take a look at those rosters. That team as it stood was not getting #17. And where was the hope? Who were the young guys for the future? Kedrick Brown? 

IMO Ainge took a team that was able to win some games but had zero hope at a banner and zero upside potential.

We are not ready for prime time just yet. But we are very deep. We have young athletic hungry guys. We run and are starting to play smart hoops. We still (for now) have the best player from when Ainge arrived in Paul Pierce.

We have a couple potential stars in AJ and Green. 

We have a very solid coach who is on the same page as Ainge.

And we have Scabs. Fine if you think Walter would be better. I don't and the guy does not want to play in Boston. So forget about him. But after Walter there was who - Vin Baker? Mark Bryant? Grant Long?

The horse Ainge inherited had gone as far as it could. Maybe even further. He's now building for #17. The process is not easy but there already some great pieces in place.

Believe it!


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

DA made the Antoine move to stay under the luxury tax (because Wyc was pressuring him) as Chris Mills' contract was paid by insurance.

If we had better owners, who knows how our roster would look today?


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Danny can not stand Walkers game. That is well known as Ainge said it himself as a commentator.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

I don't think anyone is questioning Danny's moves (besides AWF), because we are definitely going in the right direction. What most people are questioing is "Why not keep Toine?" He's somewhat a fan favorite and fan hatorate, and the team would have probably won more than 50 games with him in a full season.

The team Danny had was a joke, ownership didn't want to pay when 3 guys where injured so we just have someone to PRACTICE with. Gaston was one cheap *** guy. But what you cannot question about that team is their desire and heart, looking back at the EFC run there was a lot of hustle and believing in each other, even if most of the guys didn't have that much talent. Battie didn't have legs, Williams didn't have eyes (he's blind in one eye) and 5-6 players from the team were just scrubs.

While both Tony and Eric were not great, and maybe were a bit handicapped, they still had what it takes to help us win. So did Antoine.

Some other comments:



Causeway said:


> 13 Delonte West G
> 43 Kendrick Perkins C
> 9 Justin Reed F 6-8
> Qyntel Woods F
> ...


These are also all no names, and 5-6 of them can also be considered scrubs with potential. That's the only thing these guys are superior in vs the other guys that Danny inherited.




> And we have Scabs. Fine if you think Walter would be better. I don't and the guy does not want to play in Boston. So forget about him. But after Walter there was who - Vin Baker? Mark Bryant? Grant Long?


This post was actually going somewhere before I read this.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Causeway said:


> Danny can not stand Walkers game. That is well known as Ainge said it himself as a commentator.


What does this matter? He ignored better deals (Chicago) to get Mills' insurance money and get under the luxury tax. Antoine would've been traded anyway, but this way, we got LaFrentz's horrible contract and were stuck with Jiri Welsch, not Josh Howard.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

aquaitious said:


> This post was actually going somewhere before I read this.


Why are people so in love with Walter. Besides the fact that he's average at best - HE WANTED OUT OF BOSTON. So adios. Go make another crappy CD Walter.


----------



## DWest Superstar (Jun 30, 2005)

Premier said:


> What does this matter? He ignored better deals (Chicago) to get Mills' insurance money and get under the luxury tax. Antoine would've been traded anyway, but this way, we got LaFrentz's horrible contract and were stuck with Jiri Welsch, not Josh Howard.


What I would do for Josh Howard.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

His CD was good, by the way.

McCarty wanted more minutes, something Scalabrine will get (15+).


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Premier said:


> What does this matter? He ignored better deals (Chicago) to get Mills' insurance money and get under the luxury tax. Antoine would've been traded anyway, but this way, we got LaFrentz's horrible contract and were stuck with Jiri Welsch, not Josh Howard.


It matters because your point is that Walker got traded by Ainge for money only. It was more than money. It was his game.


----------



## DWest Superstar (Jun 30, 2005)

Causeway said:


> Why are people so in love with Walter. Besides the fact that he's average at best - HE WANTED OUT OF BOSTON. So adios. Go make another crappy CD Walter.


Hey Moment For Love was Fire :biggrin:


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Causeway said:


> It matters because your point is that Walker got traded by Ainge for money only. It was more than money. It was his game.


Ainge traded Antoine *to Dallas* only because of Chris Mills' contract.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Could be. Walkers trade value was not so high at that point. And I have no problem with the results of the first Walker trade regardless of the motivation.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

Causeway said:


> Why are people so in love with Walter. Besides the fact that he's average at best - HE WANTED OUT OF BOSTON. So adios. Go make another crappy CD Walter.


You must be the only guy who's high on Scabs. He's the guy who excites me the least on next years team.

If you really want to brag about something of what Danny has done, please do so by telling us how he drafted very well in his 3 years here, how he ripped the Cavs for the Ricky D and Chris Mihm deal, or how he stole everything he could from the Lakers with the "Give me 10 million in cap space, a 1st rounder and I'll give you scrubs" deal. But please don't brag about how Veal was actually a "key/good" signing.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

aquaitious said:


> You must be the only guy who's high on Scabs. He's the guy who excites me the least on next years team.
> 
> If you really want to brag about something of what Danny has done, please do so by telling us how he drafted very well in his 3 years here, how he ripped the Cavs for the Ricky D and Chris Mihm deal, or how he stole everything he could from the Lakers with the "Give me 10 million in cap space, a 1st rounder and I'll give you scrubs" deal. But please don't brag about how Veal was actually a "key/good" signing.


I am not bragging about it. I was not jumping up and down in excitement when I heard about. It's not going to land the Celtics on the cover of SI Magazine for barn burner moves. I did not say it was a "key" move.

It's also not nearly the doom and gloom people are making it out to be. It's a more than solid guy for that spot.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

Causeway said:


> I am not bragging about it. I was not jumping up and down in excitement when I heard about. It's not going to land the Celtics on the cover of SI Magazine for barn burner moves. I did not say it was a "key" move.
> 
> It's also not nearly the doom and gloom people are making it out to be. It's a more than solid guy for that spot.



If it wasn't for 5 years, the guy would have gotten a much better reaction. He's an all right player, but even Nets fans, who love him, say he's a fan favorite, wouldn't have signed him for 5 years/15M.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

> If it wasn't for 5 years, the guy would have gotten a much better reaction. He's an all right player, but even Nets fans, who love him, say he's a fan favorite, wouldn't have signed him for 5 years/15M.


Fine. I still would not take any of the backup players from the roster Danny inherited over Scabs. 

Vin Baker - no.
Mark Bryant - nope
Grant Long - no
Walter - no


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Causeway said:


> Could be. Walkers trade value was not so high at that point. And I have no problem with the results of the first Walker trade regardless of the motivation.


Why take on LaFrentz's contract and get only one asset in return, a late-first round pick. Something that could've been bought or traded for very easily.

If money didn't matter, we would've had a nice package from Chicago.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

Causeway said:


> Fine. I still would not take any of the backup players from the roster Danny inherited over Scabs.
> 
> Vin Baker - no.
> Mark Bryant - nope
> ...


We never had any money to spend on FA, and were too cheap to ever use the whole or part of the MLE. This year we finally did and the best we could get was Veal...this year's FA market was really short on players with any impacts.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Premier said:


> Why take on LaFrentz's contract and get only one asset in return, a late-first round pick. Something that could've been bought or traded for very easily.
> 
> If money didn't matter, we would've had a nice package from Chicago.


LaFrenz is very solid - that's why.
And Jiri helped in the Cleveland trade. Another great move.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Reggie Evans could've been had for the MLE.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Causeway said:


> LaFrenz is very solid - that's why.


That's why Dallas took on Antoine's contract only to dump LaFrentz to the Celtics. A MLE signee could've matched LaFrentz's production.



> And Jiri helped in the Cleveland trade. Another great move.


Did Danny plan this as he traded Antoine? He traded Jiri after seeing him play terribly for 1.5 years.

Listen. Antoine's trade was never to get back equal talent. It was a luxury tax dump.


----------



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

Causeway said:


> It matters because your point is that Walker got traded by Ainge for money only. It was more than money. It was his game.


[strike]Are you being deliberately dense?[/strike] The others have made a legitimate point which you're refusing to acknowledge and keep raising this point, which isn't even germane. Walker was dealt to Dallas because the owners wanted five million slashed from the payroll, period. If the owners weren't cheap *******s Walker would have been a Knick or a Bull and the Celtics would have had better players and a better pick as a reward. I really don't care how much you hate Walker. We get it, you want big, slowfooted, white guys and not Walker. Maybe you should just post shorthand and say "May I reiterate that I hate Walker and want the Celtics' kids to learn the game the right way from Scalabrine, a power forward that plays the game the way it was meant to be played, chucking up threes from the perimeter and only rebounding in a contract year." It would make it much easier on the rest of us. :biggrin:

No need for that.

- Premier


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

ehmunro said:


> Are you being deliberately dense? The others have made a legitimate point which you're refusing to acknowledge and keep raising this point, which isn't even germane. Walker was dealt to Dallas because the owners wanted five million slashed from the payroll, period. If the owners weren't cheap *******s Walker would have been a Knick or a Bull and the Celtics would have had better players and a better pick as a reward. I really don't care how much you hate Walker. We get it, you want big, slowfooted, white guys and not Walker. Maybe you should just post shorthand and say "May I reiterate that I hate Walker and want the Celtics' kids to learn the game the right way from Scalabrine, a power forward that plays the game the way it was meant to be played, chucking up threes from the perimeter and only rebounding in a contract year." It would make it much easier on the rest of us. :biggrin:


You read what you want to read and pull out points to once again try and be witty. I think you watch too much Sports Center. If what you got from my starting this thread was "May I reiterate that I hate Walker and want the Celtics' kids to learn the game the right way from Scalabrine, a power forward that plays the game the way it was meant to be played, chucking up threes from the perimeter and only rebounding in a contract year" than the dense one would be you.

I was comparing rosters top to bottom from when Danny arrived. I'd say it's an improvement. If you have something to add to why or why not you think it's an improvement great. But no - once again you just want to sling around one liners that add nothing to the thread excpept for adding to your standup routine.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Are you ignoring this:



> The others have made a legitimate point which you're refusing to acknowledge and keep raising this point, which isn't even germane. Walker was dealt to Dallas because the owners wanted five million slashed from the payroll, period. If the owners weren't cheap *******s Walker would have been a Knick or a Bull and the Celtics would have had better players and a better pick as a reward


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Premier said:


> Are you ignoring this:


ehmunro ignored 99% of my point of making this thread. You don't seem to be worried about that.

And the point about being traded to the Knicks or Bulls has NOTHING to do with Ainge. He did the best with what he had to work with. A player with low trade value and requirements from owners.

Again - I am happy with that trade. Did you ignore that Premier when I posted that already above?


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Causeway said:


> ehmunro ignored 99% of my point of making this thread. You don't seem to be worried about that.
> 
> And the point about being traded to the Knicks or Bulls has NOTHING to do with Ainge. He did the best with what he had to work with. A player with low trade value and requirements from owners.
> 
> Again - I am happy with that trade. Did you ignore that Premier when I posted that already above?


If posters always stayed on topic, we would be losing thousands of posts.

You're acting like the Dallas deal was all we could've gotten for Antoine, disregarding the fact that it wasn't meant to be a trade where we got equal value. We're not blaming Ainge, as you seem to think.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Premier said:


> If posters always stayed on topic, we would be losing thousands of posts.
> 
> You're acting like the Dallas deal was all we could've gotten for Antoine, disregarding the fact that it wasn't meant to be a trade where we got equal value. We're not blaming Ainge, as you seem to think.


So why are you worried about me not replying to something ehmunro said and you could care less that he ignored my entire point in attempt at wit? I'll tell you why. Because he was backing up a point you made.

And many trades are not about "equal value". What's the point there? Was Shaq to Miami "equal value"? 

My point was I trust that given what Ainge had to work with he did the best he could. And regardless - I am happy with the result.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Causeway said:


> So why are you worried about me not replying to something ehmunro said and you could care less that he ignored my entire point in attempt at wit? I'll tell you why. Because he was backing up a point you made.


No. You never replied to what I said and because ehmunro made the same point, I used his post to point that out to you.



> And many trades are not about "equal value". What's the point there? Was Shaq to Miami "equal value"?


Fine. The first Antoine trade wasn't anywhere close to equal value. How's that?


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Premier said:


> No. You never replied to what I said and because ehmunro made the same point, I used his post to point that out to you.


To quote you: "If posters always stayed on topic, we would be losing thousands of posts."




Premier said:


> Fine. The first Antoine trade wasn't anywhere close to equal value. How's that?


Dallas got robbed


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Causeway said:


> To quote you: "If posters always stayed on topic, we would be losing thousands of posts."


Well, surely you have time to converse with me?

:clown:


----------



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

Causeway said:


> [strike]Dallas got robbed[/strike]
> 
> "May I reiterate that I hate Walker and want the Celtics' kids to learn the game the right way from Scalabrine, a power forward that plays the game the way it was meant to be played, chucking up threes from the perimeter and only rebounding in a contract year."


See how much better that works?

Dallas got Jason Terry & a Philadelphia #1. Jason Terry & a future pick > Raef, Jiri, & a low first round pick. Dallas, in fact, got _more_ for Walker than Boston did. But Nelson didn't have any demands to slash payroll, either. 



Causeway said:


> You read what you want to read and pull out points to once again try and be witty. I think you watch too much Sports Center.


Actually, I don't watch Sportscenter at all. Whenever I turn on ESPN I find frigging celebrity poker, and I'm bloody sick of it.



Causeway said:


> ehmunro ignored 99% of my point of making this thread. You don't seem to be worried about that.


I was actually responding to what you wrote. Apparently that's a no-no?


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

You conveniently leave out Mills.

And what did Atlanta get for Walker? Was it greater than what Boston got? Does it proove anything excpet that comparing what one team got for a guy vs. what another team got for a guy does not mean that much unless you take into account all the factors for the trade?


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

If anybody doubts that Ainge couldn't have gotten something better than the Dallas deal, you're nuts.

Raef was virtually untradeable even back then. Jiri turned out to be garbage, and the pick was low because Dallas is always good. Jiri/Raef+Late 1st for Walker? C'mon, I don't even like the guy but a career 20/9 player is worth more than that. Raef's been good for us when he's been healthy, but at a steep, steep price.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

If Ainge could have gotten more I trust he would have.


----------



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

Causeway said:


> You conveniently leave out Mills.


You mean the insured contract that resulted in the five million dollar payroll cut that was the point of the trade in the first place? That Chris Mills? Oh, the irony.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

He couldn't have gotten more because we don't have Mark Cuban as our owner.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Again you conveniently leave something out. When I wrote "Dallas got robbed" I put a  after it. But leaving that in would not allow you to be witty. or truthful.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> You mean the insured contract that resulted in the five million dollar payroll cut that was the point of the trade in the first place? That Chris Mills? Oh, the irony.


Five million lousy bucks at the expense of paying Raef godly amounts forever and ever...doesn't he have a player option worth like 10 mill?


----------



## agoo (Jun 1, 2003)

Darius Songalia and Antoine Walker are the only players I would want back. If we had Songalia, Scalabrine wouldn't be here and that move alone would be priceless.

I'd also like to have the Mark Blount that Ainge inherited back instead of the one we're dealing with now.


----------



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

P-Dub34 said:


> Five million lousy bucks at the expense of paying Raef godly amounts forever and ever...doesn't he have a player option worth like 10 mill?


Well, the point was that the owners thought they were six to seven million over the luxury tax threshold, which would mean paying another six to seven million. From their point of view the five million dollar payroll cut saved them ten million (in real terms it saved them closer to $13 million when you factor in the Baker buyout). Yeah, the Raef deal was a steep price to pay, but New York & Chicago didn't have trade exceptions or insured contracts to deal. In retrospect they might have been better off with a Walker for Grant Hill swap, as it would have put them below the luxury tax line and gotten them a large rebate in 2003-04, and consequently they might have opened up the purse strings in the '04 offseason for a real MLE signing, rather than squandering 45% of it on Gugliotta's corpse.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Anyway my point which failed miserably was to try and move past the doom and gloom and look at how far we've come.

Again - 

4 Tony Battie C 
8 Antoine Walker PF
55 Eric Williams SF
34 Paul Pierce SG
7 Tony Delk PG

30 Mark Blount C
42 Vin Baker F
0 Walter McCarty SF 
5 Kedrick Brown SF
9 J.R. Bremer PG
41 Bruno Sundov C
Ruben Wolkowyski C
11 Mark Bryant PF
43 Grant Long PF
12 Bimbo Coles PG

out of that roster of 15, the last 7 are either no longer in the league, or not with an NBA team now.

Only one is a lock to be an NBA starter (Paul Pierce - Toine may have to come of the bench in Miami).

The other seven are all bench fodder, and only about three of them (Walker, Battie, EWill) will start even occasionally.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Nobody is arguing that Ainge has improved our roster.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

On the positive side:

After see-sawing through the beginning of the year

a) we hit a low point of 18-22 on Jan. 22, losing to Atlanta 100-96 with Tony Allen being our high scorer with 20 

b) starting immediately after, on Jan 25 we began playing our best ball of the year (to that point) by going 9-4 over the next 13. We went into the All Star break over .500 (28-27) and in first place. This was without Antoine Walker and with Paul Pierce leading the team, essentially and statistically, (high scorer 7 of the times - notable - and high rebounder 5 times during the stretch)

I was starting to feel better about the young guns, even while knowing we hadn't even come close to hitting our stride or playing our best ball for 48 min/gm. What could best describe the team to me was - tenacious. Not winning big but not getting blown out of any game either. And I could see a world of talent was starting to develop. 

c) Then we came out flat after the break and then flat again in losing to the LA Lakers (104-95) and getting creamed by Denver (107-86)

I think it was youth. We were not focused and consistent. We weren't always motivated to play our best.

If we can get that aspect under control this year, we will again be tough. Other teams have improved their line-ups. We merely have to continue to improve, find that magic chemistry and we have enough talent to make the play-offs again. 

We were a good team on the grow before Antoine came and there is no reason we won't be again.


----------



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

Causeway said:


> b) starting immediately after, on Jan 25 we began playing our best ball of the year (to that point) by going 9-4 over the next 13. We went into the All Star break over .500 (28-27) and in first place. This was without Antoine Walker and with Paul Pierce leading the team, essentially and statistically, (high scorer 7 of the times - notable - and high rebounder 5 times during the stretch)


It would have been awfully tough for the Celtics to have been 28-27 without Walker, going into the All Star break, as they were 27-28 when they finally acquired him. After the All Star break. 

And the bigger problem for Boston is that swapping out Walker for Veal means either more Blount (ugh) or 15-20 m/g for Veal (triple ugh). Bigger even than that is the severe downgrade from Payton to West, at a pretty vital spot. So, .500 is a goal this year, but it won't be enough to get them to the post season.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

Causeway said:


> Anyway my point which failed miserably was to try and move past the doom and gloom and look at how far we've come.
> 
> Again -
> 
> ...


I'll must ask again, but how are these players any better than those? 



> 13 Delonte West G
> 43 Kendrick Perkins C
> 9 Justin Reed F 6-8
> Qyntel Woods F
> ...


None of these are starters on a good team.


----------



## agoo (Jun 1, 2003)

aquaitious said:


> I'll must ask again, but how are these players any better than those?
> 
> 
> 
> None of these are starters on a good team.


They aren't right now. But they could be.

The team Ainge inherited had a load of guys who weren't starters on a good team and would never become starters on a good team.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

agoo101284 said:


> They aren't right now. But they could be.
> 
> The team Ainge inherited had a load of guys who weren't starters on a good team and would never become starters on a good team.


West, Perkins, Woods, Borchardt, Veal, Greene will never be starters in this league.

Reed, Gomes may be good roll players...but that's a stretch too.


----------



## ZWW (Jan 17, 2004)

Causeway said:


> 30 Mark Blount C
> 42 Vin Baker F
> 0 Walter McCarty SF/PF
> 5 Kedrick Brown SF
> ...


YIKES! That's the ugliest bench in the world - strictly speaking of their game.

:no:


----------



## ZWW (Jan 17, 2004)

ehmunro said:


> Well, the point was that the owners thought they were six to seven million over the luxury tax threshold, which would mean paying another six to seven million. From their point of view the five million dollar payroll cut saved them ten million (in real terms it saved them closer to $13 million when you factor in the Baker buyout). Yeah, the Raef deal was a steep price to pay, but New York & Chicago didn't have trade exceptions or insured contracts to deal. In retrospect they might have been better off with a Walker for Grant Hill swap, as it would have put them below the luxury tax line and gotten them a large rebate in 2003-04, and consequently they might have opened up the purse strings in the '04 offseason for a real MLE signing, rather than squandering 45% of it on Gugliotta's corpse.


Damn dude, you should work on Wall Street with those mathematical computations.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

aquaitious said:


> I'll must ask again, but how are these players any better than those?
> 
> 
> 
> None of these are starters on a good team.


What happened to these guys:

34 Paul Pierce F-G 
42 Tony Allen G 
11 Marcus Banks G 
30 Mark Blount C 
45 Raef LaFrentz F/C
12 Ricky Davis F 
7 Al Jefferson F

in addition what the others guys have is youth and potential. The Celtics bench that Ainge inherited as weak as it was was maxed out as far as potential.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Premier said:


> Nobody is arguing that Ainge has improved our roster.


Of course they are. People are saying what a shame it is that we blew up a team that was "2 games from the finals" and a "great team" to become "the Clippers."


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

ehmunro said:


> It would have been awfully tough for the Celtics to have been 28-27 without Walker, going into the All Star break, as they were 27-28 when they finally acquired him. After the All Star break.


Yes. I was off by one game. I am truly sorry for that. Nice catch ehmunro. That changes the point of my post greatly and I would not want to mislead people.

* FOR THE RECORD: I stated that when we acquired Walker we were 28-27. We actually were 27-28. If this confused anyone at all. In any way. Please accept my apologies.


----------



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

Actually, you stated that we were 28-27 going into the All Star break, which would have been tough as they'd only played 53 games by then. Also, they'd dropped three of four when they pulled the trigger on the Welsch & Walker trades. Strictly speaking, that's why they made the move.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

Causeway said:


> What happened to these guys:
> 
> 34 Paul Pierce F-G
> 42 Tony Allen G
> ...



What about those guys? You're asking me to compare the bad guys from one team to the good guys from this team?

Let's compare the bad guys from the old team to the bad guys from this.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

Causeway said:


> Of course they are. People are saying what a shame it is that we blew up a team that was "2 games from the finals" and a "great team" to become "the Clippers."


Just a small side comment, the team that was "2 games from the finals" didn't get "blown up" it got "cheaped up." Rodney and Strickland (huge contributers) were offered the minimum.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

We shouldn't have traded for Rogers in the first place. This team gives up on their prospects way too quickly. Sadly, Marcus Banks will be next.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

Premier said:


> *We shouldn't have traded for Rogers in the first place.* This team gives up on their prospects way too quickly. Sadly, Marcus Banks will be next.


At that time it was a great trade...and it was the highest point of the Celtics in the past 15 years.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

So we could go on a playoff run? Johnson was essentially a can't miss prospect. At Arkansas, he could do it all. It was a shame that Wallace gave up on him so early after a strech of bad games.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

Premier said:


> So we could go on a playoff run? Johnson was essentially a can't miss prospect. At Arkansas, he could do it all. It was a shame that Wallace gave up on him so early after a strech of bad games.


Playoff run got Gaston a ton of money...didn't he also get a big rebate that year?

They also made the trade in terms of adding those puzzles for the future...which didn't happen.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

No, they made the trade so Gaston could higher the quality of the team, increasing the amount of money he got when he sold the team to Wyc. Before the trade, the team wasn't worth 360 million dollars. Gaston, as always, sacrificed the well-being of the team for money.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

Premier said:


> No, they made the trade so Gaston could higher the quality of the team, increasing the amount of money he got when he sold the team to Wyc. Before the trade, the team wasn't worth 360 million dollars. Gaston, as always, sacrificed the well-being of the team for money.


Either way, it was for money. Good guy that Gaston, I hope he buys a NBA team.

"The Boston Celtics were like my family. It's very sad that they'll be gone" :rofl:


----------



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

Premier said:


> So we could go on a playoff run? Johnson was essentially a can't miss prospect. At Arkansas, he could do it all. It was a shame that Wallace gave up on him so early after a strech of bad games.


He gave up on JJ because JJ was O'Brien's guy, and he wanted Brown. Phoenix actually asked for Johnson _or_ Brown, and Wallace decided that Brown was the can't miss prospect. :curse:


----------

