# Sources: Celtics close to deal for Garnett



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

> The on-again, off-again deal with the Boston Celtics acquiring Kevin Garnett apparently is back on.
> 
> According to sources, the current deal on the table has the 6-foot-11 Garnett heading to Boston and the Celtics dealing away Al Jefferson, Theo Ratliff's hefty expiring contract and Rajon Rondo. There may also be other players and draft picks involved.
> It's not quite done, but three industry sources — including one close to the Celtics — told FOXSports.com that it's extremely close and could become official within the next 48 hours.
> ...


http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/7073708


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Kudos to Boston if and when it gets finalized. Landing Allen meant win now, and you might as well go the whole way landing KG. I'm not sure who their bench/supporting cast will be, but WOW. You gotta rank the C's up there in the East. Perhaps as the favorite.


----------



## Bubbles (Nov 12, 2005)

Yeah, this is like the 4th KG thread I have seen posted, nothing new here.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

All the C's would need to do is go after guys who would come to play for the Vet Min. You'd have your title contender there.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Yowza.

Now that's "win now"


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

From doormat to ECF contender overnight if this deal goes down.

And Ainge won't be anybody's laughingstock anymore.


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

Timberpups in the house!


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

http://www.draftexpress.com/blogs.php?blogid=8



> Multiple sources close to the situation told DraftExpress Sunday that the Boston Celtics and Minnesota Timberwolves have come to terms on a trade exchanging Kevin Garnett for a package including Al Jefferson, Gerald Green, Sebastian Telfair, and Theo Ratliff. The exact details of the trade aren’t known at this point, but it is believed that the deal will be completed shortly with similar parameters.
> 
> This deal has been rumored for most of the summer, but according to sources with direct knowledge of the situation, the main hold up had been the negotiation of a contract extension for Garnett. According to this source, Garnett’s camp is asking for a 5 year extension worth 125 million dollars. Whether or not the two parties have altered the initial proposal or agreed to it is not known, but apparently some accord has been reached. Garnett has an opt-clause in his contract for next season that he has essentially been using as leverage to get traded and secure his financial future with the team that acquires his services.
> 
> It had been widely assumed that the initial deal between the clubs had fallen through when Garnett’s agent publicized that his client was not interested in going to Boston. But circumstances seem to have progressed since that stage, to the point where one prominent player on the Celtics responded to inquiry by stating the team was “winning the Eastern Conference” next season, after having learned of Garnett’s imminent arrival.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

XMATTHEWX said:


> Timberpups in the house!



More like timberkittens, lol what a sad franchise


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

If nothing else I applaud Ainge for finally choosing one direction with the team. Dealing Jefferson would sure be rough though. If this trade goes through, I could see the Celtics entering the league's top tier with the Bulls, Pistons, and Cavs but I wouldn't consider them favorites by any means. They wouldn't have a lot outside of that "big three" and KG would only improve their poor defense so much.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

JeremyB0001 said:


> If nothing else I applaud Ainge for finally choosing one direction with the team. Dealing Jefferson would sure be rough though. If this trade goes through, I could see the Celtics entering the league's top tier with the Bulls, Pistons, and Cavs but I wouldn't consider them favorites by any means. They wouldn't have a lot outside of that "big three" and KG would only improve their poor defense so much.


Its the only correct move for Ainge since he went out and landed Ray Allen. 

I'm not sure where this places Boston in the East, but I think they have as good of a chance as anyone. Perhaps better. You can't put a ceiling on the games best shooter, an All-Star SF, and a Hall of Fame PF. They likely keep Rondo as their PG along with Tony Allen there. You have Perkins at Center. You have Gomes at SF. 

You need a backup SG and a PF. They got some rookies, but if you can add a Chris Webber and say Brevin Knight, that team is a title contender.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

liekomgj4ck said:


> More like timberkittens, lol what a sad franchise



You mean the TimberPUPS?

I actually like the direction that the Wolves are going. They weren't going anywhere with KG regardless, so they should make a move.

Depending on what rumour you hear, they are either going to get Jefferson and future draft picks, or other sources say, Jefferson, Telfair and even Green. Plus they have their young studs from this rookie class and other young players they have on the team. If the trade becomes offical, they are in full rebuilding mode, and atleast they have good young talented pieces.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

If this deal happens, I want to see Boston-Chicago opening night at the Garden.


----------



## Deng101 (Jan 13, 2005)

Yeah wow this would actually give the Celtics a pretty damn good team, look what Garnett was able to do with Cassell and Sprewell... Pierce and Allen are both way superior players.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Deng101 said:


> Yeah wow this would actually give the Celtics a pretty damn good team, look what Garnett was able to do with Cassell and Sprewell... Pierce and Allen are both way superior players.


Good Point, and in the East too.


----------



## PD (Sep 10, 2004)

As long as he is not going to the Knicks, Pistons, Heat, and Cavs, I am all for Garnett to relocate to the East. The Celtics are now on the map again.


----------



## Snake (Jun 10, 2007)

So Minnesota is going to deal him for one good prospect, one decent prospect and expirings(and possibly picks). If McHale is this desperate to move him he must be sure that Garnett isn't coming back at the end of the season.



> This deal has been rumored for most of the summer, but according to sources with direct knowledge of the situation, the main hold up had been the negotiation of a contract extension for Garnett. According to this source, Garnett’s camp is asking for a 5 year extension worth 125 million dollars.


You know this is why I don't feel bad for Garnett wasting his career in Minnesota. He's made over 200 mil in his career and now that he's 31 he wants a 125 mil extension. I've heard people say that KG isn't about the money and he cares about winning, but come on, 125 mil!


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

That's the best deal Minny can get? Picks thrown in from Boston won't be worth much with how lousy the East is. 

From Boston's perspective, they're screwed if KG leaves after one year, but it's also unwise to give him an extension of $125M over the next 5 seasons too. 

This sucks for us. No matter how mediocre the T-Wolves have been in the past, they've always owned us. For whatever reason we just couldn't beat them. Now we're gonna have to deal with KG having Pierce/Allen on his side instead of guys like Ricky Davis/Marko Jaric.


----------



## nanokooshball (Jan 22, 2005)

Good move for both teams. Celtics are in win now ever since trading for Ray Allen, now adding KG legitimizes that. The T'wolves are going nowhere with KG, so in turn they get GREAT young talent to supplement their young team and a few good lottery years to have them develop should have them with a much brighter future.

I am afraid of the Celtics now. Not because they have 3 All-stars, but the fact that they have KG. KG always seems to kill us in most games that we play against him. I just hope our defense is good enough, but it does help to have Noah and Gray on the team, especially Noah with his athletic ability to stay with KG... sometihng we haven't had for awhile.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Celtics will be a good matchup for the Bulls. Hinrich covers Allen great. Deng own Pierce. Thomas and Noah have the athletic ability and size to stay with Garnett. Should be fun.


----------



## souleater (Apr 21, 2007)

well apparently ainge has the guts to part off with his young core means green,big al for kg,someone else with the excuse he does not want to break the core does not have it,acquiring an all star,man i'm very frusrtated,now we'll have the celts too to battle with although it seems pretty sure to me that they are better now than us with allen,paul pierce and kg,nice done pax,really i'm wondering what do u have inside your jeans?:azdaja: :azdaja:


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

Celtics could actually have some nice pieces leftover to surround their big 3. 

C: Perkins, Olowokandi(FA)
PF: KG, Big Baby, Powe
SF: Pierce, Gomes, Scalabrine
SG: R. Allen, T. Allen
PG: Rondo, Pruitt

They still have the MLE & LLE. Maybe guys like PJ, Webber, Mutombo & Knight would consider Boston now that they have the potential to come out of the East.


----------



## Ragingbull33 (Apr 10, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> From doormat to ECF contender overnight if this deal goes down.
> 
> And Ainge won't be anybody's laughingstock anymore.


and the only way this was possible? getting involved in a deal with one of the 3 gms worse than him (king, thomas, or mchale). 

last summer the deal was deng, chandler, and the #2 pick. this is what he gets now?!!


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Wow, if that happens and they fill in their depth a bit I think they definitely leapfrog us and have a legit chance of winning it all.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

souleater said:


> well apparently ainge has the guts to part off with his young core means green,big al for kg,someone else with the excuse he does not want to break the core does not have it,acquiring an all star,man i'm very frusrtated,now we'll have the celts too to battle with although it seems pretty sure to me that they are better now than us with allen,paul pierce and kg,nice done pax,really i'm wondering what do u have inside your jeans?:azdaja: :azdaja:


Jeez. I think our team will win about as many games next season and our shelf life is about eight years longer. I don't understand what there is to complain about. Some people really just seem to be obsessed with "name players." 



SALO said:


> Celtics could actually have some nice pieces leftover to surround their big 3.
> 
> C: Perkins, Olowokandi(FA)
> PF: KG, Big Baby, Powe
> ...


Some of those players are competent but I don't see any of them as a good bet to top a 15 PER (league average) whereas the Bulls don't have the same star power but could have as many as six players at that mark (Kirk, BG, Lu, Wallace, Tyrus, Noc, and maybe Smith). That team would be much improved but would have some depth problems if the deal goes through.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

For people wondering if this is done yet, I think it is. Granted it's not official, so anything can happen. But, the DX report makes it seem that the Celts and TWolves have agreed in principle and its a matter of paperwork and settling on fillers.

Regarding KG, I'm not sure if anyone has brought this up, but I wonder him wanting 5 years/125 million. Its not that Boston will have capspace anyway, so he might as well take the money. But, is he asking for that money so he has an incentive to go to Boston vs opting out next year and going to Phoenix for the MLE? For a guy who has made an incredible amount of money, I wonder why that would be the huge hold up if he wants to win a title. I do think a Allen-Pierce-KG nucleus along with adding two vets for the Min wins you the East. 

Rondo/Allen/Pierce/KG/Perkins and then having possibly Knight/Allen/Gomes/Big Baby/Webber could be enough. I do worry about their depth, but with their Big 3, its quite scary.

Regarding what John Paxson is thinking, I don't know. It is said that we offered Tyson/Lu/#2 last year for KG. McHale turned it down, so it's not Pax's fault. McHale is getting lucky to be receiving great value in Al, Green, their own pick back, and two expirings according to the ESPN report. John Paxson could not do anything today. We could not send anything to Minny without a severe gutting of the team. Plus, Minny has no use for Ben Wallace which would make it easier.

Our best bet is to stand pat. But I see the C's being title contenders for about 3-4 more years. Those guys will get slightly worse over the years, but its not easy to defeat a Hall of Famer and 2 All-Stars who still put up good numbers as the #1 option.

I don't see us making a move for till this season and the following are completed. This way almost everyone is not BYC and Big Ben becomes an expiring. Maybe after next year if we show we are lacking a big piece and we use Big Ben (then two years remaining), Noce or Smith, and Tyrus or Noah. 

But as of now, I hope Tyrus and Noah reach their ceiling. We needed them to prior to this trade to win the title, on the east, and even more so now having the east get better.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Snake said:


> You know this is why I don't feel bad for Garnett wasting his career in Minnesota. He's made over 200 mil in his career and now that he's 31 he wants a 125 mil extension. I've heard people say that KG isn't about the money and he cares about winning, but come on, 125 mil!


+1


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

SALO said:


> That's the best deal Minny can get? Picks thrown in from Boston won't be worth much with how lousy the East is.


I think it's a great deal for Minny considering there are limited options available.

They get a young Big Man who can score which is the hardest facet to add to a team. They get a young prospect, whom I think is overrated, but it's a name to please themselves with this trade. They get expirings. They also get their own pick back which is going to be a lottery pick.

I think this deal is considerably better than all other rumors. Phoenix could never get it to work because they couldn't find a 3rd team willing to deal.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

MikeDC said:


> Wow, if that happens and they fill in their depth a bit I think they definitely leapfrog us and have a legit chance of winning it all.


If they can add say, CWebb, Brevin Knight, and maybe a PJ/Malik type of player, they win the East and will give the West a fight.

Some good points made earlier in this thread:
Garnett was good with Spree and Cassell, now picture him with Allen and Pierce in the East.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

I hope this deal doesnt go down, Bulls would stand 0 chance of beating this team in the playoffs. KG, PP and Jesus Shuttlesworth.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

thebizkit69u said:


> I hope this deal doesnt go down, Bulls would stand 0 chance of beating this team in the playoffs. KG, PP and Jesus Shuttlesworth.


I'm hoping it does. Why? Call me crazy, but I want to see the Bulls have a challenge in the East. I want to see if this team, starring Luol Deng, is good enough to win the East. How much of a stride have the Bulls made since least year? I had a post in another thread that asked if we could win the title. I said no, and its because of consistency. I want to see if we have learned how to be consistent.

Did John Paxson make the right move by not going after Gasol? Kobe? etc. I'm not critizicing him for not going after them as we would have had to gut the team. But it will be interesting to ponder this throughout the season.

Is Tyrus ready for a challenge? We need this kid to step up to win the title, not win the east.

Are Gordon and Hinrich ready to be consistant for the majority of an 82 game season? Or will they have a bad month?

I want to see how good these Bulls are, and if John Paxson let a possible opportunity pass. I think its the best way to judge how good the talent is that he put together on this team. While I was quite disappointed losing to NJ in that finale, but knowing that if we got to the Finals through Mia, Det, and CLE, we would have earned it. I want to see these Bulls compete against the best and prove they are championship worthy.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

I want to see Kobe's reaction if KG lands in Boston. Pax better be keeping an eye on that situation. I wouldn't gut the team for him, but as I've mentioned in the past, we could get him without with the following:

Gordon, Du, Vik, Noce, and (Griff or Thabo)

Gordon, Du, Vik, and Smith

Those would be the minimum packages that would make it work salary wise for Kobe.

I wonder if Kobe would be willing to sit out. It comes down to that, but if he somehow does...


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Yowza.
> 
> Now that's "win now"


More like "win RIGHT now" because Garnett probably ain't staying beyond this season. 

Assuming this goes through, Ainge will have made a few ballsy moves. He really has to if to keep his job. He's made so many crappy judgements in recent years, and this is likely his last chance. Might as well go all out.

I'd say this is a fair exchange for Garnett. His value is so diminished with his contract expiring after the season, so Minny should be happy to get 2 promising young players + cap relief.

Am I afraid of the Pierce, Ray Allen, Garnett trio? Maybe a little, but you need far more depth to do anything meaningful. You also need a good point guard to get things done in the playoffs. I don't think they have one. I think we would eat this team alive.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Wow, if that happens and they fill in their depth a bit I think they definitely leapfrog us and have a legit chance of winning it all.


Can't disagree more, as far as them winning it all. 

You NEED a good PG to win in the playoffs, and they certainly don't have one that I can tell. 

Someone else also mentioned how well we've matched up versus Pierce and Allen in the past. Luol Deng has pretty much owned Pierce, and heading into next season might already be the better player. No, it's not that outrageous given Deng's progress last year. And with Ray Allen, I've never seen him more frustrated than when Hinrich defended him. I'm liking those matchups just fine.

Garnett is the real X-factor, but with no other legit post players I think we can compensate with Wallace, Noah, Tyrus, and Co on the frontline. This team is incredibly shallow.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Boston still has the MLE to use on top of the LLE and Vet Mins.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

theanimal23 said:


> I'm hoping it does. Why? Call me crazy, but I want to see the Bulls have a challenge in the East. I want to see if this team, starring Luol Deng, is good enough to win the East. How much of a stride have the Bulls made since least year? I had a post in another thread that asked if we could win the title. I said no, and its because of consistency. I want to see if we have learned how to be consistent.


I think the Bulls have enough challenges, this team can only get past the first round if they play an old Miami Heat team thats also injured, they still cant beat or even compete honestly with Detroit in the playoff's and its still not proven that they can beat a team that has a legit superstar on their team, Miami doesnt count that team was just not even close to being 100% healthy. Can the Bulls beat the Cavs, Wizards and Nets when their superstars are on their A game? Untill they answer that question then we can start talking about the Bulls playing against a team with 3 superstars.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

thebizkit69u said:


> I think the Bulls have enough challenges, this team can only get past the first round if they play an old Miami Heat team thats also injured, they still cant beat or even compete honestly with Detroit in the playoff's and its still not proven that they can beat a team that has a legit superstar on their team, Miami doesnt count that team was just not even close to being 100% healthy. Can the Bulls beat the Cavs, Wizards and Nets when their superstars are on their A game? Untill they answer that question then we can start talking about the Bulls playing against a team with 3 superstars.


I totally agree with you. This is why I think the Bulls could win the East, but I don't see them doing so. The Bulls are not a consistant team. Here are my reasons why the Bulls are not ready for the big-time: http://www.basketballforum.com/4929054-post20.html

But, it would be better to see if this team is championship worthy or one of those perennial playoff teams that bounces out in the 2nd round. I hate being just a perennial playoff team. Its either you are an annual ECF contender with a legit shot to win it all, or you rebuild. Being in the playoffs means nothing if you aren't advancing.

Pax needs to see how good this team is, and realize if they will be good enough to win a title. We're young enough that we can wait, but he cannot wait long enough to let opportunities pass by. Thats the key thing. 

If we are average, I think we need to change our plans and either go for Kobe or look to a different avenue. John Paxson needs to realize what the true value of this team is and of the individual players. He can't keep placing guys like Deng on a pedestal just because they work hard. He needs to see if the talent present leads to championships.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

yodurk said:


> Can't disagree more, as far as them winning it all.
> 
> You NEED a good PG to win in the playoffs, and they certainly don't have one that I can tell.


derek fisher? bj, paxson?

i wouldn't say all THAT


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

We'll see what happens if Pierce or KG gets injured. Remember this isn't football, the NBA season is a grind. Regardless, this definitely puts the Celtics in the playoffs and makes them the favorite for the Atlantic. I think if the Bulls could land Kobe that the East vs West debate would probably become extinct.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

The ROY said:


> derek fisher? bj, paxson?
> 
> i wouldn't say all THAT


I would call Fisher, BJ, and Paxson all good point guards (at the time they won of course). Fisher was a solid veteran who played great defense, drilled 3's, and knew his role. BJ and Pax, pretty much the same deal. More importantly, they were veterans and played with 2 of the best all-around players of our time.

I look down the Celtics roster and see Rondo, Telfar, Tony Allen...Rondo has the best PG ability but is young and not a good shooter (can't comment on his defense). Brevin Knight would be an upgrade I suppose so maybe they go for him with the MLE. 

Am I the only one who thinks Gordon & Deng might already be better (albeit marginally) than Pierce & Allen? The former are rising stars, while the latter are quietly declining but still get hype from name recognition. Look at the numbers though, and the gap is far closer than many believe. Hinrich is a better PG than anyone the Celtics will muster up. As I said before, it's really a matter of how Garnett affects the team. Can Wallace, Tyrus, Noah, and Smith slow him down sufficiently?


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

theanimal23 said:


> If we are average, I think we need to change our plans and either go for Kobe or look to a different avenue. John Paxson needs to realize what the true value of this team is and of the individual players. He can't keep placing guys like Deng on a pedestal just because they work hard. He needs to see if the talent present leads to championships.


I agree, but it's one thing to work hard, but it's another altogether to work hard and drastically improve, which Deng has.


----------



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

XMATTHEWX said:


> Timberpups in the house!


Maybe they can change their name from the Timberwolves to the Teenwolves? :bsmile:



yodurk said:


> Am I afraid of the Pierce, Ray Allen, Garnett trio? Maybe a little, but you need far more depth to do anything meaningful. You also need a good point guard to get things done in the playoffs. I don't think they have one. I think we would eat this team alive. ...
> 
> Can't disagree more, as far as them winning it all. You NEED a good PG to win in the playoffs, and they certainly don't have one that I can tell.


No you don't. Which of the title winners in the 90s had a good point guard? Detroit, sure. But Chicago & Houston (no, Kenny Smith wasn't "a good pg")? San Antonio was winning titles when Tony Parker still sucked and Avery Johnson was three years past his expiration date. Honky Fudge is only a good point guard in his own mind. In NBA terms he's decidedly mediocre. The fact that the Spurs have been the recent NBA champion, and Detroit with Billups a recent title holder, does not mean that one needs a "good PG" to win a title. In fact, with shot creators like Pierce & Garnett you need very little out of the one spot. Charlie Bell or Chris Duhon would be more than enough to compete. You aren't going to "eat that team alive". It's easy to defend a team with only one realistic scoring option (it's what's made it easy on Deng vs. Boston the last couple of years). Not so much when Hinrich & Deng are forced to do it all themselves because no doubleteam's coming to save them. Garnett's a player that needs to be surrounded by shotmakers, Boston has them in spades (though they'll need trade Rondo for an upgrade at the 1). They're going to be very tough to stop.

EDIT: I see that you later defined "good" down to "roleplayer level talent", at which point any scrap heap vet the Celtics pick up means they have a "good pg".


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Celtics Insider on another board:



ddb said:


> Inside: KG agrees to an extention. Should be complete soon. Finally..
> 
> No link to the extention news. Just what i've heard.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Also interesting to point out that the Celts are over the cap with their Big 3, and will easily surpass the Luxury Tax. 

I'm not even remotely a fan of that team, but I have to appreciate that sign from ownership. Its reassuring to a fan. Unlike the Knicks, they are paying for players who can still play at a high level (ie not Francis) and are not selfish.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

ehmunro said:


> Maybe they can change their name from the Timberwolves to the Teenwolves? :bsmile:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think your definition of "good" is a bit more extreme than mine. By "good", I mean "competent". Most teams in the NBA today have at least 1 competent point guard. The Celtics don't - (the Lakers and Rockets come to mind as others, though Crittendon for the Lakers might be good).

Rajon Rondo doesn't cut it. They need an upgrade there badly, otherwise that team gets held back. And I stated before, don't expect Allen and Pierce to put up mindblowing stats together. They were both 25 ppg scorers last year, but it was primarily the by-product of tons of shots, dominating the ball, and playing on crappy teams. I'm interested to see how much their scoring dips.

Personally, I think Gordon and Deng's ability to score at a more efficient clip (with fewer shots) on a deeper team is more impressive.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> I hope this deal doesnt go down, Bulls would stand 0 chance of beating this team in the playoffs. KG, PP and Jesus Shuttlesworth.


Why? Hinrich shuts down Allen. Deng owns Pierce. Thomas and Noah have plenty of athleticism, ability and size to stay with a declining KG.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

yodurk said:


> I think your definition of "good" is a bit more extreme than mine. By "good", I mean "competent". Most teams in the NBA today have at least 1 competent point guard. The Celtics don't - (the Lakers and Rockets come to mind as others, though Crittendon for the Lakers might be good).
> 
> Rajon Rondo doesn't cut it. They need an upgrade there badly, otherwise that team gets held back. And I stated before, don't expect Allen and Pierce to put up mindblowing stats together. They were both 25 ppg scorers last year, but it was primarily the by-product of tons of shots, dominating the ball, and playing on crappy teams. I'm interested to see how much their scoring dips.
> 
> Personally, I think Gordon and Deng's ability to score at a more efficient clip (with fewer shots) on a deeper team is more impressive.


I agree with your last paragraph.

If they can get a guy like Brevin Knight, then they will be totally fine. As a basketball fan in general, its hard not to get excited about what the Celtics are doing.

They picked a direction, they decided they would pony up the cash to pay the Tax, to win the titles when the East is incredibly wide open. A team posing their Big 3 will always have a chance in the Finals unlike the Cavs.

For those who wanted KG, can't blame Pax on this one as they rejected Lu/Tyson/#2 last year. I'm not sure how I would feel about that trade. I'd prolly lean towards No. 

But considering the makeup of the C's today, this is the right move.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ehmunro said:


> Maybe they can change their name from the Timberwolves to the Teenwolves? :bsmile:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Scottie Pippen was an outstanding PG. That he played SF on defense allowed the bulls to use specialists in the lineup, be it 3 point shooting specialists like Paxson or Kerr, or defensive specialists like Ron Harper.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

TripleDouble said:


> Why? Hinrich shuts down Allen. Deng owns Pierce. Thomas and Noah have plenty of athleticism, ability and size to stay with a declining KG.


If only it were that Easy. I would love to see a Boston-Chicago matchup in the 2nd round of the playoffs.

We might have the better team overall but I'm not so sure if our team will shut down their stars.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

theanimal23 said:


> If only it were that Easy. I would love to see a Boston-Chicago matchup in the 2nd round of the playoffs.
> 
> We might have the better team overall but I'm not so sure if our team will shut down their stars.


Who's going to get the ball to their stars on a regular basis? Their PG situation is not so hot.


----------



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

yodurk said:


> Personally, I think Gordon and Deng's ability to score at a more efficient clip (with fewer shots) on a deeper team is more impressive.


Actually, I think the fact that Pierce managed to be a more efficient scorer than either Deng or Gordon, playing while injured with a second option that's black hole is a whole lot more impressive than efficient scoring on a team with two and three other scoring options on the floor at all times. With Allen and Garnett on the floor as well, Pierce's scoring will be _more_ efficient, not less (especially as he's recovered from the broken foot). Sure, all three players will probably see their scoring go down, but their scoring efficiency will increase as teams won't be able to effectively double any of them (as all three are pretty good passers).



yodurk said:


> I think your definition of "good" is a bit more extreme than mine. By "good", I mean "competent". Most teams in the NBA today have at least 1 competent point guard. The Celtics don't - (the Lakers and Rockets come to mind as others, though Crittendon for the Lakers might be good).
> 
> Rajon Rondo doesn't cut it. They need an upgrade there badly, otherwise that team gets held back. And I stated before, don't expect Allen and Pierce to put up mindblowing stats together. They were both 25 ppg scorers last year, but it was primarily the by-product of tons of shots, dominating the ball, and playing on crappy teams. I'm interested to see how much their scoring dips.


Yeah, but competent players just aren't that hard to come by. Charlie Bell and Juan Carlos Navarro are both available and both fit into the "competent" category. They can also trade Rondo to upgrade the spot, or maybe Green to Houston for Luther Head + (with Rondo being included in a Garnett deal). They really don't need much out of the 1 spot. Pruitt might be able to give them what they need by as soon as the 2009 season (I think he's 2007's Chris Duhon).


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

TripleDouble said:


> Who's going to get the ball to their stars on a regular basis? Their PG situation is not so hot.


I don't follow Boston much, actually have not seen them much since they aren't on TV. But I think Rondo will be fine for the regular season. I'm not sure who is available, but if they can lure Brevin Knight, they did a hell of a job. Otherwise maybe they will go for a Vet who isn't great, but might be competent enough. A Chucky Atkins type of player. I don't know what FAs are currently avaiable, but they have the MLE, LLE, and Vet Mins to spend. With a nucleus like that, there might be some guys who would be willing to play.

They could make a few minor deals. Maybe land Brendan Haywood as your 5. Sign CWebb. 

I wish I knew what FAs were available at the PG spot.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Scottie Pippen was an outstanding PG. That he played SF on defense allowed the bulls to use specialists in the lineup, be it 3 point shooting specialists like Paxson or Kerr, or defensive specialists like Ron Harper.


Bingo. People forget that Scottie was the primary ballhandler/distributor for that team and that Pax and Kerr were essentiallky 3-ball shooting guard specialists who did not bring the ball up the floor most of the time.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

Well, it certainly doesn't help the Bulls this year or next year, but these guys are getting older and Boston is gonna go back to obscurity quickly after 2 or 3 years.

Gotta give props to Ainge for actually pulling it off. He certainly redeems himself for getting Ray Allen, that move makes sense with KG added to Pierce. Allen and Pierce weren't gonna do it.

Minn gets All Jeff, who is very nice.

Good deal for both, when you consider McHale wasn't getting much else offered.


----------



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

DaBullz said:


> Scottie Pippen was an outstanding PG. That he played SF on defense allowed the bulls to use specialists in the lineup, be it 3 point shooting specialists like Paxson or Kerr, or defensive specialists like Ron Harper.


I agree with that, except that the same thing will be happening in Boston. The "point guard" will be carrying the ball over the half court line and handing it to Pierce. Boston will de distributing the ballhandling chores between Garnett and Pierce. The one thing the Celtics don't need is a point guard that has to run the offense to be effective (which is why I'm in favour of a Rondo trade). 

EDIT: And you don't need to tell me about Pippen, when the inevitable "overrated" threads pop up, and people start arguing that Scottie doesn't deserve his spot on the top 50 all time list, I'm one of the few that defends his selection. 



TripleDouble said:


> Who's going to get the ball to their stars on a regular basis? Their PG situation is not so hot.


It doesn't have to be "hot". The Celtics have three very good passers on their roster. The one thing they don't need is a point guard like Brevin Knight (or Rajon Rondo, for that matter). Ideally they need someone like Duhon or Charlie Bell, that can play some defense and drain some open shots. That's it.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

theanimal23 said:


> I agree with your last paragraph.
> 
> If they can get a guy like Brevin Knight, then they will be totally fine. As a basketball fan in general, its hard not to get excited about what the Celtics are doing.
> 
> ...


Good post. 

I hope I'm not misrepresenting my view...I find it both exciting and intriguing for the Celtics to pair up these guys together. I also think they'd be a lock for the playoffs, with a pretty good seeding. Ainge is giving up basically ALL his young assets for short term gain. It will kill them in the long run, but for now it should be fun.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

ehmunro said:


> Actually, I think the fact that Pierce managed to be a more efficient scorer than either Deng or Gordon, playing while injured with a second option that's black hole is a whole lot more impressive than efficient scoring on a team with two and three other scoring options on the floor at all times. With Allen and Garnett on the floor as well, Pierce's scoring will be _more_ efficient, not less (especially as he's recovered from the broken foot). Sure, all three players will probably see their scoring go down, but their scoring efficiency will increase as teams won't be able to effectively double any of them (as all three are pretty good passers).


Fair enough. I expect scoring for all 3 to dip, but efficiency to go up.

And while I say that Deng & Gordon might be better than Allen & Pierce, I carefully used the word "might". For this year alone, I'd probably choose Allen & Pierce come playoff time because veteran experience is important. I'm not trying to devalue their production. But they're heading toward the tail end of their primes, and Deng/Gordon are just entering theirs. My main point is that the gap between these guys is very very narrow, separated mostly by the veteran experience factor.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

So when the Bulls don't make a run at Kobe (didn't even contact LA according to Pax) and don't revisit Gasol talks (even though they have a new GM) thats all okay. Everything (real or imagined) can be summarily dismissed as an automatic gutting of the team. Then, if this line of thinking isn't espoused, it can be pointed out that we offered more once upon a time. BTW, aren't those reports of our offer written by the same folks who are then ignored with respect to their reporting on the Gasol talks?

If this trade goes down between Boston and Minnesota am I to understand that Ainge kept 2 stars on his roster while acquiring a 3rd and propelling his team into contention all while revisiting a trade that was already ruled out as DOA? Good to know what is and isn't possible.










I like this team, but I still believe the criticism of Krause applies to Paxson. I think he falls in love with his guys. He was quick to trade everyone else, but still hasn't traded one of his own.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

ehmunro said:


> It doesn't have to be "hot". The Celtics have three very good passers on their roster. The one thing they don't need is a point guard like Brevin Knight (or Rajon Rondo, for that matter). Ideally they need someone like Duhon or Charlie Bell, that can play some defense and drain some open shots. That's it.


It's not just about being a good passer though. There are countless players who are good passers, but lack a PG mentality. 

Perhaps what I'm trying to verbalize is that every great team needs a player or two who brings the "point guard mentality", not necessarily a PG persay. This means someone who not only is a good passer, but has the vision, instincts, and unselfishness to facilitate scoring opportunities for others. Not only that, but also creating a flow to the offense where the ball keeps moving and keeps the defense off balance. 

I think Pierce and Ray Allen fail in this category. They are good enough passers, but they simply don't have this mentality. Honestly, Garnett probably fits this profile more than anyone on the team. This is impressive on his part, but might not be good enough from a team standpoint. The Wolves' best season came with Sam Cassell at the helm, who was an excellent (very underrated) facilitator.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Mr. T said:


> So when the Bulls don't make a run at Kobe (didn't even contact LA according to Pax) and don't revisit Gasol talks (even though they have a new GM) thats all okay. Everything (real or imagined) can be summarily dismissed as an automatic gutting of the team. Then, if this line of thinking isn't espoused, it can be pointed out that we offered more once upon a time. BTW, aren't those reports of our offer written by the same folks who are then ignored with respect to their reporting on the Gasol talks?
> 
> If this trade goes down between Boston and Minnesota am I to understand that Ainge kept 2 stars on his roster while acquiring a 3rd and propelling his team into contention all while revisiting a trade that was already ruled out as DOA? Good to know what is and isn't possible.
> 
> I like this team, but I still believe the criticism of Krause applies to Paxson. I think he falls in love with his guys. He was quick to trade everyone else, but still hasn't traded one of his own.


Right, but it's not all fine and dandy for the Celtics. Three big things stick out to me:

a) Very small window of opportunity
b) Very few young players for the future
c) Very little talent beyond their big 3 (it's almost pathetic really - mostly 2nd round talent)

Ainge probably made the right move given his situation (i.e. he's on the verge of getting fired). But these are glaring holes that we are not even close to approaching. We have a large window of opportunity, with alot of young talent, and one of the deepest teams in the league.

You can call for Kobe all you want, but the Lakers are not trading him for the zillionth time. They just aren't.

Would it really be smart to rent KG for 1 season and lose a good player or two in the process? Ainge did because he has nothing to lose. The man is desperate.

Gasol might still be in the works. I haven't lost hope on that, it's more just a matter of building up our salaries for a trade come Dec 15th. As long as Deng isn't included, I think those discussions will be re-visited.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

The problem with this Celtics team invariably will end up being "Who the hell is out on the court besides KG, Pierce, and Ray Allen?" Rondo? Kendrick Perkins? Ryan Gomes? A rookie Big Baby? Come on people, outside of the big 3 the Celtics will have no one player who would even crack the Bulls top 10. Allen is on the decline and spends copious amounts of recent seasons injured. Will Pierce, Garnett, and 60 games from Ray Allen be enough to win the Atlantic? Probably. Will it be enough to claim that the Celtics will be a serious contender? Probably. Is the team actually going to win the East let alone the NBA Finals? Probably not. Two stars in the 30s, one who gets injured often and the other who hasn't carried a team to the NBA Finals yet. Pierce who I do like. And ten other guys who should be on a deep bench or in the NBDL. If the Celtics win the East and the NBA Finals, I will officially proclaim the NBA as "dead basketball"


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Mr. T said:


> I like this team, but I still believe the criticism of Krause applies to Paxson. I think he falls in love with his guys. He was quick to trade everyone else, but still hasn't traded one of his own.


I was Pro-Gasol. I would still sign off to Deng and PJ if it was offered. The most I'd be willing to offer was that package including Thabo. We will never know the exact offer. Rumors speculate that they wanted Deng and Gordon. Then I've read of packages saying Deng, Noce, and PJ would be enough.

I think Pax had checked out the Kobe situation. He'd be a moron if he didn't. I'm hoping this move really pisses off Kobe to no limit. I hope he realizes that even an imcompetent GM in McHale was able to move KG to the Leastern Conference. I can only hope Pax picks up the phone and gets Kobe for a reasonable deal. 

I don't know what to think of Pax. I respect a lot of his moves, and I hate a lot of his non-moves. The problem is, we don't know exactly what was on the table. But I do worry that Pax is attached to this team like their are his own children, and an opportunity may pass us by.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Lets put it this way. If the Cavs can make it to the Finals with Lebron and Garbage. The C's could very well make it too.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

I'm curious how this became a 5 page thread in the BULLS board. Why not the Celts board, or the Wolves board...or how about the one in NBA Forum?


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Lets put it this way. If the Cavs can make it to the Finals with Lebron and Garbage. The C's could very well make it too.


how about another way? the bulls have *less* "garbage" than either team; shouldn't they too very well be able to make it?


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

theanimal23 said:


> Lets put it this way. If the Cavs can make it to the Finals with Lebron and Garbage. The C's could very well make it too.


That's somewhat true I guess, but LeBron is also significantly better than both Pierce and Allen, and slightly better than Garnett. I also hold the Cavs supporting cast in much higher regard than the crap the Celtics have. Ilgauskas, Gooden, Hughes, Marshall, and Pavlovic are all better than anything the Celtics have beyond the anointed big 3.


----------



## Mr.Montross (Sep 24, 2005)

GregOden said:


> I'm curious how this became a 5 page thread in the BULLS board. Why not the Celts board, or the Wolves board...or how about the one in NBA Forum?


Life is a mystery sometimes, is it not?


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

GregOden said:


> I'm curious how this became a 5 page thread in the BULLS board. Why not the Celts board, or the Wolves board...or how about the one in NBA Forum?


Um, maybe because it's kind of a BIG deal, no matter if it involves us or not?


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

BULLHITTER said:


> how about another way? the bulls have *less* "garbage" than either team; shouldn't they too very well be able to make it?


They should but I'm not too sure. 

I'm torn on the Bulls. I feel that if Luol and Ben can continue to improve at their current rate, we can make the ECF. I am a believer that our chances to win the Finals rests on Tyrus Thomas' shoulders. For a "#2" pick, the expectations are correctly placed, albeit early. I think we have a shot to go to the ECF this year with a healthy Noce, a younger 'PJ' in Smith, and Noah being a big man who will do what it takes to rebound and play D. If the guys work hard enough, the talent is not the issue with me. Sure we do not have a superstar, but we could have a great team if our front court lives up their ceiling. Again, I think this plays a huge role in Tyrus Thomas. If a miracle occurs and he has a 2nd year like Deron Williams, then I see us having an incredible shot at winning the Finals.

My issue with the Bulls is their lack of consistency. This may be due to our lack of a superstar. Other teams have an easier time getting shots off and not being rattled. We were quite shaken during the Detroit series (games 1 and 2, second half of game 3, and the end of game 6). This team doesn't brush off the frustration, nervousness, or shaken confidence that easily. I would want to see more consistency before I 'buy' the Bulls. This results in not blowing 18 point leads to the Nets twice, not showing up in the biggest regular season game (at least show up and lose), having too much confidence in the Det series, lack of road wins, another likely dismal circus trip, and Gordon and Hinrich missing for a month.

If you can be consistant in half the situations I mentioned, then I see the Bulls taking that step and being mentally there. Thats the bigger issue to me, more than the talent part of the game. One last thing, if the Bulls somehow learn that they can score by getting to the FT line and can make a living by doing this, we will win the East. Its the only way we can get past the issue of not having a post-scorer when our J's don't fall.

With the C's, I don't think Boston is finished with this offseason if they land KG. They can shore up the PG spot by going after Knight, McInnis, or Boykins. They can offer the MLE to Barnes, Posey, or Pietrus. Go after CWebb with the Vet Min.

Chemisty and health will be an issue for that team over the long haul of the season. But if you have a minute remaining in a game, I have more faith in a team having a few superstars than a team that has trouble creating their own shot.

The East is wide open. Until we prove some consistency, I will still give the benefit of the doubt to the Pistons, Cavs, and the C's if they can make the right moves.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Don't know how legit it is:

http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/celtics/extras/celtics_blog/



> *New twists in Garnett talks*
> By Shira Springer, Globe Staff
> Kevin Garnett soon could become the newest member of the Celtics, multiple league sources said this afternoon but two of the sources cautioned that any trade may not be as imminent as some early reports indicated.
> 
> ...


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

T.Shock said:


> The problem with this Celtics team invariably will end up being "Who the hell is out on the court besides KG, Pierce, and Ray Allen?" Rondo? Kendrick Perkins? Ryan Gomes? A rookie Big Baby? Come on people, outside of the big 3 the Celtics will have no one player who would even crack the Bulls top 10. Allen is on the decline and spends copious amounts of recent seasons injured. Will Pierce, Garnett, and 60 games from Ray Allen be enough to win the Atlantic? Probably. Will it be enough to claim that the Celtics will be a serious contender? Probably. Is the team actually going to win the East let alone the NBA Finals? Probably not. Two stars in the 30s, one who gets injured often and the other who hasn't carried a team to the NBA Finals yet. Pierce who I do like. And ten other guys who should be on a deep bench or in the NBDL. If the Celtics win the East and the NBA Finals, I will officially proclaim the NBA as "dead basketball"


Depends on what the trade is if it happens, but it I don't see them having a problem if they're willing to go out and spend some money (and not doing so after you've just traded everything to get Pierce and KG would be silly).

I like Rondo a lot... I've seen varying reports about whether he goes or stays. I'd take him over Duhon except for the experience factor. They could bring in guys like Knight, Boykins, that Greek guy eveyone's talking about, or maybe JC Navarro who the Wiz are foolishly not serious about.

Or they could probably acquire a Duhon-like player in trade without killing themselves. PG is the only area I see some problem. 

For their other depth, there's a whole slew of decent role-player types out there that could fill in the roster on any championship team. Serviceable guys like Brian Skinner, Marc Jackson, Austin Croshere, Posey, Ruben Patterson, Devin Brown or Ime Udoka, and the Celtics could probably pick up most every one of those guys if they so chose.

1- Knight, Rondo
2- R. Allen, T. Allen
3- Pierce, Posey
4- Garnett, Croshere
5- Skinner, Jackson, Perkins

Looks entirely possible to me, and just as deep as us. If they're gonna add KG, they might as well go all out and get as many of those serviceable guys that are floating around as they can.

I think we very much overrate our depth, especially as it meshes on our team. On a team chock full of scorers like the Celtics, a guy like Duhon would be golden. On our team he's too good to keep off the court but not a heck of a good fit with the other offensively challenged players they've got.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

This could be the best trio since Scottie, Barkley, and Olajuwon! 
Look at how many...wait nevermind.


----------



## LIBlue (Aug 17, 2002)

Would any of us trade Luol Deng, Tyson Chandler, and last years # 2 (Tyrus Thomas) for Gerald Green, Ryan Gomes, Sebastian Telfair, Theo Ratliff and two first-round picks? How many of these guys would make the current Bulls roster?

If memory serves me correctly, Minnesota turned down Deng, Chandler and the # 2 for Garnett last year. Boy, the Bulls offer last year was superior to the Celtics offer this year. Minnesota would be getting hosed if that is the trade that went down.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

I think we may all be over-rating Ray Allen. I love Ray, love 'em. But he's entering his 12th season in the league and he's not the player he was in Milwaukee. 

I'm not that worried.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

WEEI, a Boston Radio station is stating the deal without Al Jefferson. But they may be stating their sources from the same place (the newspaper) and they are not believing the deal either (Al Jeff staying).

I have a hard time believing it, but it is McHale.


----------



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

yodurk said:


> It's not just about being a good passer though. There are countless players who are good passers, but lack a PG mentality.
> 
> Perhaps what I'm trying to verbalize is that every great team needs a player or two who brings the "point guard mentality", not necessarily a PG persay. This means someone who not only is a good passer, but has the vision, instincts, and unselfishness to facilitate scoring opportunities for others. Not only that, but also creating a flow to the offense where the ball keeps moving and keeps the defense off balance.


I think the whole "point guard mentality" thing is overrated. Pierce has never had any trouble kicking the ball out to other players that he believed could finish shots. He created lots of open looks for NBA journeymen like Ricky Davis & Wally Szczerbiak Szczuperstar. And has never had any trouble sharing the ball with black holes like Szczuperstar or Jefferson. The fact is that when you have multiple ball handlers, the last thing you want/need is some guy that thinks of himself as the primary handler and floor general. The floor generals will be Pierce and Garnett. They just need someone to get the ball past half court and knock down the open shots.



yodurk said:


> Right, but it's not all fine and dandy for the Celtics. Three big things stick out to me:
> 
> a) Very small window of opportunity
> b) Very few young players for the future
> c) Very little talent beyond their big 3 (it's almost pathetic really - mostly 2nd round talent)


a) Everyone has a small window of opportunity, in five years Cleveland and Miami will have reloaded around James & Wade and Portland will be taking their place atop the NBA. So Boston's attempting to win a title in their only possible window of opportunity. If they didn't win in the next four years they weren't going to win for another 12 years.
b) The only young player of note being discussed is Jefferson. They can easily replace any lost low first round picks with new low first round picks.
c) They are in exactly the same state that they were in before the deal, with the exception that the third member of their new big three is a top 10 NBA player rather than the Jim Rice of the NBA.



T.Shock said:


> The problem with this Celtics team invariably will end up being "Who the hell is out on the court besides KG, Pierce, and Ray Allen?" Rondo? Kendrick Perkins? Ryan Gomes? A rookie Big Baby? Come on people, outside of the big 3 the Celtics will have no one player who would even crack the Bulls top 10. Allen is on the decline and spends copious amounts of recent seasons injured. Will Pierce, Garnett, and 60 games from Ray Allen be enough to win the Atlantic? Probably. Will it be enough to claim that the Celtics will be a serious contender? Probably. Is the team actually going to win the East let alone the NBA Finals? Probably not. Two stars in the 30s, one who gets injured often and the other who hasn't carried a team to the NBA Finals yet. Pierce who I do like. And ten other guys who should be on a deep bench or in the NBDL. If the Celtics win the East and the NBA Finals, I will officially proclaim the NBA as "dead basketball"


Ray Allen did play 55 games last year, but most of that was due to his team trying to tank games for draft position. He missed eight games in total the two years prior to that. He averages about 72 games per year and has only missed significant time in 3 of his 11 seasons. Frankly, Jefferson and flotsam for Garnett is a great deal. They still have most of their overrated kids to use as bodies. They still have most of their MLE to use to sign another vet.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

One Celtics poster said that the C's keep Big Al if KG does not agree to an extension. If he does, Big Al goes.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

theanimal23 said:


> Don't know how legit it is:
> 
> http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/celtics/extras/celtics_blog/


Unbelievable.

Really.

If it happened to be true (Don't believe it for a second), then all of a sudden it becomes a trade of ROY for KG. Much more palatable. 

Still don't believe it.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

If this deal happens, I want to see Chicago @ Boston opening night


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/celtics/extras/celtics_blog/



> *Jefferson back in mix*
> By Shira Springer, Globe Staff
> Al Jefferson is back in the trade talks between the Celtics and Timberwolves.
> 
> *As the trade currently stands, the Celtics would send Jefferson, Gerald Green, Ryan Gomes, Sebastian Telfair, Theo Ratliff, and two first-round picks to the Timberwolves for Kevin Garnett*


I'm not sure, but at this stage, that is incredible value coming back for the TWolves. 

Big Al - One of the best big man prospects in the league 

Gomes - Solid Rotation player 

Green - Potential, I don't think he will ever pan out and he is overrated. But its a name. 

Two 1st Rounders - Late picks, but still have value. 

Expirings (Ratliff/Telfair)


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

theanimal23 said:


> One Celtics poster said that the C's keep Big Al if KG does not agree to an extension. If he does, Big Al goes.


I'm starting to be unconvinced that this deal will even happen. Prior to the draft, apparently the Amare, KG, #3/#11 picks was a sure thing and that never materialized. The common denominator here is Minnesota. Someone is leaking info from Minny's side that isn't entirely true.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Wow. What a trade. Ainge is doing what he has to do - swing for the fences while the East is wide open. The trade for RayRay made no sense at the time, but now it looks pretty brilliant - and it took massive cojones to pull all this off. There was no guarantee that adding Ray Allen would be enticing enough to change KG's mind about playing in Boston, and if it didn't, Ainge would have done a lot to torpedo the franchise for the long haul. Now? You never know til the guys take the court together, but they certainly can win the East if they play well as a unit. KG has no problem sharing, Pierce is selfish in a good way (wants the ball in the clutch) and usually a willing passer, 2002 World championships notwithstanding, and Allen is good with and without the ball. It could work. 

Their window is only 2-3 years, and counts pretty heavily on Allen's ankles being 100%, but the young guys Ainge had stockpiled couldn't win many games, so it's the kind of thing he might as well do. I think that's where this situation differs from ours. People are probably right to criticize Paxson for overvaluing our guys, but I doubt he'd value them so highly if they weren't winners. I doubt Pax would hesitate to deal for Pau or KG if our core was struggling to win 25 games. 

But anyway, you have to wonder if Paxson made any effort to top Boston's package - or if he even could without PJ's contract to match salaries. I'm willing to give Pax the benefit of the doubt and I hope he's biding his time for Kobe or Gasol's price tags to come down, but I can understand the hand-wringing that Danny freakin Ainge can make a deal like this and we're on the sidelines. We suddenly have another potential roadblock in our path to make it out of the east.


----------



## tweedy (Apr 4, 2005)

The Celtics run the EC if they retain Al Jefferson. A distributor like Brevin Knight would solidify their starting lineup as the best in the league, at least on paper.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Celtics Board says that Jackie McMullan is on the ESPN HotList and says the following:

"My sources tell me this thing is going down. Celtics won't do it without a KG extension." 

"Al, Theo, Gerald, Telfair. Celtics won't have to part with Rondo." 

"Top 3 favorite in the East." 

It's going down right now. Could be done as soon as today; working on a contract extension." 

"Al, Gerald, Telfair, Ratliff in the deal-- Celtics would not and will not have to part with Rondo."

"If the Celtics don't get the extension, they won't do the deal."


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

ViciousFlogging said:


> Wow. What a trade. Ainge is doing what he has to do - swing for the fences while the East is wide open. The trade for RayRay made no sense at the time, but now it looks pretty brilliant - and it took massive cojones to pull all this off.


I always felt that trade made no sense if they couldn't land KG. The fact that they kept Big Al when they landed Ray Ray always left the door open for KG. Theo's expiring and Big Al himself could land you KG at the deadline. No team can top that in terms of salary relief and a top notch prospect. Bynum is not that great and LA never had anything going for them. Marion never wanted to go to Minny, so that was not happening unless they sent Amare.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

theanimal23 said:


> *Being in the playoffs means nothing if you aren't advancing.*


Quote of the Year.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

thebizkit69u said:


> Quote of the Year.


Not sure if you're being sarcatic or not, but I'm thinking I should elaborate on why I feel that way.

I feel there are 3 stages for a team, its a)rebuilding b)making the playoffs annually and c) title contending.

I think the worse stage is stage b, which is what my quote refers to. Many will say its better to make the playoffs than be an annual lottery team. We have been there. Now its too early to say our Bulls are that team, as our players have yet to enter their prime and are quite young. But, an example of this stage would be the Sixers for a few years post-Finals, the current NJ Nets, etc.

While its great to make the playoffs, I think for teams in that situation, its horrible. You're in a dreaded middle where you likely will never win the conference let alone have a shot to win the Finals. Yet you're not bad enough to rebuild.

So thats why I feel, if you're making the playoffs but are not advancing to the point where you're a shoe-in to be in the ECF with a shot to go and win the finals, you're current plan is not working. If the current plan is not working to get a team to it's ultimate goal, then whats the point? 

I'm not sure how long it will be if and when Chicago enters this stage. I do think we can make the finals soon. But if over the span of the next 5 years, say we make the playoffs and only get to the ECF once, then something isn't going correctly. Changes will be needed IMO. I doubt something that drastic will happen. I think we can make it to the ECF this very year. But thats what I meant by my quote.

I do think, its great to make the playoffs as we did the the first two years post-dynasty as we needed to make that jump from a rebuilding team to a playoff team. Our team is fairly young and needs to make that jump to the ECF in the next two years IMO. I will still give this current team, as is, another 4-5 years probably to prove their worth. Reason being, our big men are quite young.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/celtics/?p=117



> *Sources this morning are confirming that the Celtics’ deal for Kevin Garnett is essentially completed.
> 
> One involved source said the final package will have the Celts sending Al Jefferson, Ryan Gomes, Gerald Green, Sebastian Telfair, Theo Ratliff and a No. 1 pick to Minnesota to acquire Garnett.*
> 
> Further word is that the Celts and Garnett have reached an agreement in principle on a contract extension. You may recall a report here that Danny Ainge would not do the deal without such a guarantee of Garnett’s presence, and it appears now that the perennial All-Star is willing to forego the opt-out in his current deal for next summer and cast his lot with Paul Pierce, Ray Allen and the Celtics.


----------



## souleater (Apr 21, 2007)

it will announced today,so nba can make some late adjustments to new year's schedule which comes out tomorrow,that's why they hurry so much to get it done today


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ehmunro said:


> I agree with that, except that the same thing will be happening in Boston. The "point guard" will be carrying the ball over the half court line and handing it to Pierce. Boston will de distributing the ballhandling chores between Garnett and Pierce. The one thing the Celtics don't need is a point guard that has to run the offense to be effective (which is why I'm in favour of a Rondo trade).
> 
> EDIT: And you don't need to tell me about Pippen, when the inevitable "overrated" threads pop up, and people start arguing that Scottie doesn't deserve his spot on the top 50 all time list, I'm one of the few that defends his selection.


Quibbler that I am, I simply argue that championship teams do have good PGs for the most part, or at least the Bulls had one and that's 6 championships.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Quibbler that I am, I simply argue that championship teams do have good PGs for the most part, or at least the Bulls had one and that's 6 championships.


Hate to quibble a quibbler, but are you saying that the dynasty teams had a good PG? As I recall, a PG and a dominant center were the two things they didn't have. I suspect that I misunderstood and apologize in advance.


----------



## epic (Mar 16, 2004)

it's all but done, just need to sort out contracts



> BOSTON, July 30 (AP)-- Kevin Garnett is leaving Minnesota after the Boston Celtics agreed to acquire the All-Star forward in a multiplayer trade with the Timberwolves, a Celtics official told The Associated Press on Monday.
> 
> Among the players who could be headed to Minnesota are forward Al Jefferson, guard Sebastian Telfair, swingman Gerald Green and center Theo Ratliff, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the deal had not been completed. The official also said the Timberwolves would get at least one draft choice.
> 
> The teams still had some things to clarify with the players' contracts, but the official said that would not keep the Celtics from acquiring Garnett, although there could be a change in the players ticketed for the Timberwolves.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

transplant said:


> Hate to quibble a quibbler, but are you saying that the dynasty teams had a good PG? As I recall, a PG and a dominant center were the two things they didn't have. I suspect that I misunderstood and apologize in advance.


They had a Magic Johnson type PG in Pippen. Pippen played SF on defense. that allowed them to have a PG on defense who was either a specialist in defense or 3pt shooting.

And yes, Pippen was the PG. he led the team in assists, dribbled the ball up court, played at the top of the key, and generally everything a PG does on offense. When played at the traditional SF position in Houston, he was mediocre. When he took over the PG position in Portland (at both ends of the floor, too) the team had a remarkable record two straight seasons.

At the C position, the Bulls didn't have dominant players, but Cartwright was an outstanding player in his day. Kukoc played a lot of center, and at least at the offensive end, he was superb. Tho it's somewhat moot, as Jordan was one of the greatest post players I ever saw.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> They had a Magic Johnson type PG in Pippen. Pippen played SF on defense. that allowed them to have a PG on defense who was either a specialist in defense or 3pt shooting.
> 
> And yes, Pippen was the PG. he led the team in assists, dribbled the ball up court, played at the top of the key, and generally everything a PG does on offense. When played at the traditional SF position in Houston, he was mediocre. When he took over the PG position in Portland (at both ends of the floor, too) the team had a remarkable record two straight seasons.
> 
> At the C position, the Bulls didn't have dominant players, but Cartwright was an outstanding player in his day. Kukoc played a lot of center, and at least at the offensive end, he was superb. Tho it's somewhat moot, as Jordan was one of the greatest post players I ever saw.


I don't buy the Pippen / Magic comparisons. Jordan dominated the ball way too much for Pippen to be considered a point guard on those Bulls teams. Pippen did handle the rock a lot for a forward, but comparing him to Magic Johnson, a guy with over 10,000 career assists, is a stretch and a half. 

That said, the fact that Gordon and Deng are both average at absolute best ball-handlers at the 2 and 3 is reason to be wary of playing a combo guard at the 1. We'll see how it shakes out. As of now we certainly don't have a point forward type player to take some of the ball handling load off of Hinrich's shoulders...


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

The Celtics are pretty much going to look like the T-Wolves of a few years back who had KG, Cassell and Spree, the big differance they are in the eastern conferance now. Question i have is does this move force a counter move by Paxson?


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

I like our team but now it almost feels as if we HAVE to make some sort of move.

The east is getting STRONGER

Ray Allen, Rashard Lewis, Zach Randolph & Kevin Garnett all made their way east this offseason. Damn near 4 all-stars.

I won't panic yet though but it's looking alot tougher to get of the east than it did a couple of months ago.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

rainman said:


> The Celtics are pretty much going to look like the T-Wolves of a few years back who had KG, Cassell and Spree, the big differance they are in the eastern conferance now. Question i have is does this move force a counter move by Paxson?


I don't see how, Pierce is MUCH better than Spree & Cassell were at the time and Allen is arguably better than they both were also.

KG has a BETTER team now.


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

The ROY said:


> I don't see how, Pierce is MUCH better than Spree & Cassell were at the time and Allen is arguably better than they both were also.
> 
> KG has a BETTER team now.


Allen and Pierce certainly arent as good as those guys were defensively and we'll see how much Garnett has left in the tank. Offensively they should score a ton of points, its on the boards and defensively where they'll struggle, off the bench too.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

rainman said:


> Allen and Pierce certainly arent as good as those guys were defensively and we'll see how much Garnett has left in the tank. Offensively they should score a ton of points, its on the boards and defensively where they'll struggle, off the bench too.


u're talkin as if Cassell and Spree were world-beaters defensively or something.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

rainman said:


> Question i have is does this move force a counter move by Paxson?


If we need to make a move to catapult us to the top of the East and gives us a leader to allow us to ride him to a title, it's Kobe Bryant. 

I hope after Team USA Basketball is over, Kobe realizes even more how imcompetant the Lakers are. Seeing how either they could not get KG or trade Kobe to the East. For us to have a chance to get him, he needs to sit out. Sadly, I think he is too much of a competitor to do so.

No other player out there allows us to leapfrog the competition or will be had trade value wise by giving up Gordon, etc. 

Gasol will not be available. I highly doubt it. If so, who knows how those conversations go. The only other player who could become remotely available is Elton Brand. But I do not see him having the personality to demand a trade. He would also need to make it clear he will not come back to LAC regardless of the contract they will offer him. I'm not sure how that will go. Even a guy like KG was wanting his 5 years 125 million. A guy who has made more money than any other player from contracts. 

If we're making a move, we go for Kobe.


----------



## Zuca (Dec 4, 2003)

There is also Jermaine O'Neal, but I still can see JO being traded to Lakers...


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

The ROY said:


> u're talkin as if Cassell and Spree were world-beaters defensively or something.


They were good defenders, Pierce and Allen dont play defense.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

rainman said:


> They were good defenders, Pierce and Allen dont play defense.


Pierce played pretty good defense when the Celtics were a good team. He's taken less interest in it the last couple years IMO. I think he'll play better defense now that he has a good team and also won't have to carry as heavy a load on offense.

Allen can be serviceable on defense too, though he's no stopper and is coming off ankle problems.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

I'm still not sold on their defense. This is a team that finished 18th in defensive efficiency and 24th in field goal percentage. In order to consider them title contenders and EC favorites I think you have to either project them as getting up into the top 10 in one of those categories or assembling a Suns-style offensive juggernaut. KG undoubtedly improves their D but I don't see either happening. Anyone who's that high on this team care to respond? 



theanimal23 said:


> If they can add say, CWebb, Brevin Knight, and maybe a PJ/Malik type of player, they win the East and will give the West a fight.


I just don't think it'll be that easy for them to solve their depth problems. I really don't think any of those players are any good.



ehmunro said:


> Yeah, but competent players just aren't that hard to come by. Charlie Bell and Juan Carlos Navarro are both available and both fit into the "competent" category. They can also trade Rondo to upgrade the spot, or maybe Green to Houston for Luther Head + (with Rondo being included in a Garnett deal). They really don't need much out of the 1 spot. Pruitt might be able to give them what they need by as soon as the 2009 season (I think he's 2007's Chris Duhon).


I guess that depends on how you define competent. Bell posted only a 13 PER last season (15 is the league average) and I haven't heard that Navarro is on the market. Luther's PER is better at 13.7 but still not great. If you don't have a single average or above average player on your roster outside of your three best players I think that causes some problems.



Mr. T said:


> I like this team, but I still believe the criticism of Krause applies to Paxson. I think he falls in love with his guys. He was quick to trade everyone else, but still hasn't traded one of his own.


I mean what's supposed to happen if we trade some package based around Lu and Tyrus for KG (assuming that's even possible which it's probably not because we'd be hard pressed to find the salaries to match)? We go from maybe a 54 win team to a 65 win team and topple San Antonio, Phoenix, or Dallas to win the title in the next two or three seasons? That just doesn't seem very realistic to me. I really believe our title chances our better holding onto the players we currently have. 



theanimal23 said:


> Lets put it this way. If the Cavs can make it to the Finals with Lebron and Garbage. The C's could very well make it too.


Definitely. What's killing me is that the thought process has always been that whatever EC team reaches the Finals doesn't have a legit shot against the Western Conference Champion. Suddenly, people are referring to the Celtics as "title contenders" if this deal goes through meaning that unlike the Bulls, Pistons, and Cavs, they have a serious chance of winning a Championship series if they advance that far and I just can't see that.



theanimal23 said:


> My issue with the Bulls is their lack of consistency. This may be due to our lack of a superstar. Other teams have an easier time getting shots off and not being rattled. We were quite shaken during the Detroit series (games 1 and 2, second half of game 3, and the end of game 6). This team doesn't brush off the frustration, nervousness, or shaken confidence that easily. I would want to see more consistency before I 'buy' the Bulls. This results in not blowing 18 point leads to the Nets twice, not showing up in the biggest regular season game (at least show up and lose), having too much confidence in the Det series, lack of road wins, another likely dismal circus trip, and Gordon and Hinrich missing for a month.


I think it's important to remember that these sorts of things happen to all teams with some frequency. A lot of times there seems to be this "the grass is always greener" phenomenon in sports where fans think that great teams don't blow leads and to teams they should easily beat but if happens to everyone. IIRC the first game the 72 win team lost was to a hapless Bucks squad. The Bulls might do this more than other squads right now due to their youth but I don't think it's a huge issue. Also, we need to be careful placing too much emphasis on a small number of games such as the Detroit series. I'm not saying the series is meaningless by any means but such a small number of games is a small sample size so you need to be careful drawing major conclusions. 



theanimal23 said:


> Don't know how legit it is:
> 
> http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/celtics/extras/celtics_blog/


It's extremely hard for me to believe that a deal could get done without Jefferson. The Wolves are getting hardly anything in return at that point so you have to figure they'd just hold onto KG or initiate talks with other teams. If they somehow acquired KG without moving Jefferson, McHale would be taking his ineptitude to all new heights and Boston would be the team to beat perhaps in the entire NBA. 



ehmunro said:


> a) Everyone has a small window of opportunity, in five years Cleveland and Miami will have reloaded around James & Wade and Portland will be taking their place atop the NBA. So Boston's attempting to win a title in their only possible window of opportunity. If they didn't win in the next four years they weren't going to win for another 12 years.


Sorry but I find that to be completely nonsensical. A young contending team like the Bulls has a far larger window for contention than an older team like the rebuilt Celtics if this deal goes through. I don't see how you can refute that outside of illogically ragging on the Bulls.



theanimal23 said:


> "Top 3 favorite in the East."


Heh. Along with the Pistons and Cavs I take it? Pretty amazing that we finished within a game of the Cavs and have more room for internal improvement than most teams and yet no one gives us the time of day. That's fine, it's more fun and perhaps easier to win with a chip on your shoulder. 



The ROY said:


> I like our team but now it almost feels as if we HAVE to make some sort of move.
> 
> The east is getting STRONGER
> 
> ...


I'd be a lot more concerned if any of those teams finished within striking distance of us last season. The Pistons, Cavs, and Raptors were the teams at a similar level to us and none of them have made any huge additions so I think we'll be fine.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

JeremyB0001 said:


> I'd be a lot more concerned if any of those teams finished within striking distance of us last season. The Pistons, Cavs, and Raptors were the teams at a similar level to us and none of them have made any huge additions so I think we'll be fine.


What a difference an offseason makes man.

NY, Orlando & Boston all should be better next year, some better than others.

Besides NY, both of those teams upgraded in areas the truely lacked.

It makes me question if we've actually even gotten THAT much better now.

I feel better that we can actually match up better wit these big frontlines but that's about it as of right now.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

The ROY said:


> What a difference an offseason makes man.
> 
> NY, Orlando & Boston all should be better next year, some better than others.
> 
> ...


One thing I didn't mention is that if we do fall substantially short of expectations, we could fall a long ways because the teams below us have improved. We're going to need some bad luck and injuries for that to happen though IMO.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jbulls said:


> I don't buy the Pippen / Magic comparisons. Jordan dominated the ball way too much for Pippen to be considered a point guard on those Bulls teams. Pippen did handle the rock a lot for a forward, but comparing him to Magic Johnson, a guy with over 10,000 career assists, is a stretch and a half.


Pippen's 6100+ career assists speak for themselves. The comparison to Magic is that both were very big for the PG position. While it's true that Jordan dominated in the FGA department, it's also true that the Championship Bulls were very good at having more than one or two players touch the ball on possessions.

"This is the game I try to coach, in which everybody gets the ball, and everybody moves the ball, and everybody has a feel for the ball," Jackson says. "They have this idea that this is a community game." -- Phil Jackson


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

TripleDouble said:


> Why? Hinrich shuts down Allen. Deng owns Pierce. Thomas and Noah have plenty of athleticism, ability and size to stay with a declining KG.


Are you serious?


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

theanimal23 said:


> Not sure if you're being sarcatic or not, but I'm thinking I should elaborate on why I feel that way.


I'm not being sarcastic at all.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

The ROY said:


> What a difference an offseason makes man.
> 
> NY, Orlando & Boston all should be better next year, some better than others.
> 
> ...


We need this *entire *package soon on a consistant basis

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ryS5XXxe5sk"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ryS5XXxe5sk" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


----------



## Mr.Montross (Sep 24, 2005)

The ROY said:


> NY, Orlando & Boston all should be better next year, some better than others.


Not so sure about Orlando, and Knicks gotta show me.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

After having some time to think about this deal, I don't feel too bad about it from a Bulls perspective. It comes down to a few things: 

1. Did Boston retain Gomes? He would add depth and is a quality player coming off the bench.
2. Will they use any of their exceptions (MLE, LLE, Vet Min)? If so, will any guys take a paycut. I can see CWebb coming over for the Min. They might need to split the MLE between Knight and say Ruben Patterson. 

These are huge Ifs. Now, any team with their core 3 cannot be ignored. Its simply the best trio in the NBA. If they don't add anyone, they will pose problems matchup wise in the playoffs, but I don't think they can outlast teams that are younger and have quality depth. I don't see it being a problem for Chicago. But, if they can add certain Vets, I could see them beating us. Why? They might not be a superior team 1 through 12, but their top dogs are going to be extremely hungry come playoff time. I'd be worried to see a KG in the East with Allen and Pierce. In the NBA, Superstars dicate success more than anything.

In terms of the overall picture of the Eastern Conference, Detroit is still #1 in my book. We need to prove we can match up with them. I'm less concerned about our front court matching up with them. I'm more worried about our backcourt along with Luol. Luol was our best player that series and most consistant, but IMO Prince outplayed him in critical stretches in that series. I do think Luol will be better this year and will not lose that matchup. The addition of Noah and progress of Tyrus will pay huge dividends. I think this year they will be our Miami. 

The Cavs are a question mark for me. I do see them resigning both Pav and Varejao. The question is, will any of them take a step back? A lot of FAs do not work out during the summer to prevent injury. If they are doing the same, the longer they wait for a contract, the more it will hurt the Caveliers. But they cannot be ignored due to Lebron James. He's only 22 just like Luol.

My overall rankings for the East record wise:

Assuming Boston adds no more quality pieces:
1. Detroit
2. Chicago
3. Cleveland
4. Boston
5. Toronto

If Boston adds quality Vets:
1. Detroit
2. Boston
3. Chicago
4. Cleveland
5. Toronto

I think there are a few key things, if they fall in place for us, will make me believe the Bulls will win the East:
1. Consistency. Its a transition from being a 'young' team to a 'veteran' team. We need to take that step and learn from the Detroit series like we did from the Miami series two years ago. We need to play better on the road and not play to the level of our competition.

2. Tyrus Thomas, Joakim Noah, and Noce -- If these guys can come and play majority of the nights, teams are going to hate us. These guys will get under the opposition's skin and we can throw a variety of matchups at them.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

theanimal23 said:


> I totally agree with you. This is why I think the Bulls could win the East, but I don't see them doing so. The Bulls are not a consistant team. Here are my reasons why the Bulls are not ready for the big-time: http://www.basketballforum.com/4929054-post20.html
> 
> But, it would be better to see if this team is championship worthy or one of those perennial playoff teams that bounces out in the 2nd round. I hate being just a perennial playoff team. Its either you are an annual ECF contender with a legit shot to win it all, or you rebuild. Being in the playoffs means nothing if you aren't advancing.
> 
> ...


If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

bullybullz said:


> If it ain't broke, don't fix it.



I agree, we have time to wait to see if it's broke or not. But if there is a deal that becomes available that can improve our team, I think Johnny Pax needs to do it. But nothing seems available on the horizon.

The question is, how long do you wait before concluding that it is broke? Thats the key question. I say we have another 4 years or so if we don't move any pieces at all.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

If Garnett also does sign the extension as part of the deal, he just extended Pierce's and Allen's careers, that's for sure (because Garnett makes everyone around him better).

Hopefully Garnett won't sign that extension...


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

bullybullz said:


> If Garnett also does sign the extension as part of the deal, he just extended Pierce's and Allen's careers, that's for sure (because Garnett makes everyone around him better).
> 
> Hopefully Garnett won't sign that extension...


I don't think Boston was doing the deal if KG didn't sign it. I think it will be a 3 year extension, possibly up to 5.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

theanimal23 said:


> I agree, we have time to wait to see if it's broke or not. But if there is a deal that becomes available that can improve our team, I think Johnny Pax needs to do it. But nothing seems available on the horizon.
> 
> The question is, how long do you wait before concluding that it is broke? Thats the key question. I say we have another 4 years or so if we don't move any pieces at all.


Exactly, when the key players are in their prime and it isn't working, trade options will have to clearly be on the table.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

theanimal23 said:


> http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/celtics/extras/celtics_blog/
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow, that's win win for both teams- especially if KG doesn't sign that extension.:wink:


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

theanimal23 said:


> Not sure if you're being sarcatic or not, but I'm thinking I should elaborate on why I feel that way.
> 
> I feel there are 3 stages for a team, its a)rebuilding b)making the playoffs annually and c) title contending.
> 
> ...


As a fan, would you rather see a team always be in the lottery (Hawks) or a team that at least goes to the playoffs and competes (T-Wolves)?? I don't know for sure but I'd rather watch teams that consistently make the playoffs than watch losers go to the lottety year after year. 

Besides, anything can happen in the playoffs (Cavs in the Finals) so you can't predict the future when it comes to playoff time.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

Celtics and Bulls in finals. Bulls will pull out a 4-3 series victory though. WOO CHAMPIONSHIP!


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

bullybullz said:


> As a fan, would you rather see a team always be in the lottery (Hawks) or a team that at least goes to the playoffs and competes (T-Wolves)?? I don't know for sure but I'd rather watch teams that consistently make the playoffs than watch losers go to the lottety year after year.
> 
> Besides, anything can happen in the playoffs (Cavs in the Finals) so you can't predict the future when it comes to playoff time.


Great question. If we're going to be in the lottery like the Hawks or Knicks where you make the wrong picks or don't have picks, then I rather make the playoffs.

If you can be in the lotto a few years and luck out and make some good moves like Portland, I'll take that route.

I think the Bulls will be better off. But I feel there are certain teams that can make it and will never have a shot. I do think after spending 3-4 years not being in the playoffs, you have to aim to make it. Then you have to try to succeed there and then hopefully win it. Do exactly what Pax has done with the Bulls. We are on track. Now say over the next 6-8 years we cannot win the East once, then I think we might need to make changes/tweak the team. But I don't think that will happen.

Its difficult for me to be articulate because each situation/team is differnt. But if I was the GM of the Wolves and you asked me 2-3 years ago to keep that window open to be an 8 seed, I would have traded away KG if ownership was okay with it. That plan was not working and the 8th seed in the West is a difficult task. 

I think the Bulls are doing it the correct way, especially for not landing a Lebron/Wade.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

liekomgj4ck said:


> Celtics and Bulls in finals. Bulls will pull out a 4-3 series victory though. WOO CHAMPIONSHIP!


I would love to Win the East going through the path of Boston, Cleveland, and Detroit in any order. But then again, I know I'll be pissed if we miss the easy path again


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

theanimal23 said:


> Great question. If we're going to be in the lottery like the Hawks or Knicks where you make the wrong picks or don't have picks, then I rather make the playoffs.
> 
> If you can be in the lotto a few years and luck out and make some good moves like Portland, I'll take that route.
> 
> ...


I agree.


----------



## Snake (Jun 10, 2007)

bullybullz said:


> Wow, that's win win for both teams- especially if KG doesn't sign that extension.:wink:


I don't think it's very good for the Wolves. They're getting Zach Randolph Jr (minus the off court stuff), either Rondo or Green both of which are only decent prospects, Ryan Gomes (you can draft a Gomes level player in the 2nd round) and a salary dump. Boston is going to be in the playoffs so their pick isn't worth much. Minny is going to be awful next year and I don't think they even have a pick though I'm not certain.

Why didn't McHale move him one or two years ago? Deng, Chandler and the number two pick were offered. Who knows what other teams offered or would have offered back then. Considering that since then Minnesota has done exactly jack **** it seems like a horrible move to have held on to Garnett for the past couple of years just to see his trade value fall. Of course he did help line the owners pockets for those couple years, so that's something...


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

Snake said:


> I don't think it's very good for the Wolves. They're getting Zach Randolph Jr (minus the off court stuff), either Rondo or Green both of which are only decent prospects, Ryan Gomes (you can draft a Gomes level player in the 2nd round) and a salary dump. Boston is going to be in the playoffs so their pick isn't worth much. Minny is going to be awful next year and I don't think they even have a pick though I'm not certain.
> 
> Why didn't McHale move him one or two years ago? Deng, Chandler and the number two pick were offered. Who knows what other teams offered or would have offered back then. Considering that since then Minnesota has done exactly jack **** it seems like a horrible move to have held on to Garnett for the past couple of years just to see his trade value fall. Of course he did help line the owners pockets for those couple years, so that's something...


Now, Minnesota can use Ratliff's expiring contract for a good quality FA next summer along with another draft pick.

As of now, I see the Wolves as this

Starters: PG Randy Foye (will blossom stat-wise) SG Ricky Davis/ Corey Brewer SF Ricky Davis/ Corey Brewer PF Al Jefferson C Mark Blount (At least they will compete hard...)

Bench: PG Telfair SG Trenton Hassell SF Ryan Gomes PF Juwan Howard C Theo Ratliff (if he is not injured, if he is PF Craig Smith and C Juwan Howard) not a bad bench another hard-working unit plus they also have Gerald Green, Rashad McCants, Marko Jaric, Chris Richard, Mark Madsen.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Does anybody else feel like this is a re-hash of the Shaq to Miami deal of a couple years ago. The T-Wolves will still be terrible and the Celtics may very well win a championship and then immediately get swept by a young up-and-coming Raptors team the following season. The Cs will be good but around the net some Celtics fans are talking like they've wrapped the East up and nothing irks me more than delusional, completely biased and illogical fans.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

Simmons says we could've had KG

Chicago fans, you should be bummed -- KG would have ended up in Chicago if John Paxson had simply rolled over P.J. Brown's expiring deal last February for a 2008 expiring deal to preserve that cap number (like Phoenix wouldn't have been interested???). 

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


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

bullybullz said:


> Simmons says we could've had KG
> 
> Chicago fans, you should be bummed -- KG would have ended up in Chicago if John Paxson had simply rolled over P.J. Brown's expiring deal last February for a 2008 expiring deal to preserve that cap number (like Phoenix wouldn't have been interested???).
> 
> http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/070730


When it comes to the Bulls, I hate reading Simmons' articles. I hate how we didn't use PJ's salary to get another player. But Simmons doesn't know whats going on. He kept thinking that the deal was less than Deng and Gordon for Gasol. No one outside of Bulls/Grizz management knows the details of the deal.

There was not one article about us persuing KG outside your monthly Sam Smith Bulls articles that we should should get KG. Was KG even available at the deadline?


----------



## chibul (Oct 14, 2006)

It was definitely silly not to capitalize on P.J. Brown's deal, in one way or another. Wasted opportunity.


----------



## Snake (Jun 10, 2007)

bullybullz said:


> Now, Minnesota can use Ratliff's expiring contract for a good quality FA next summer along with another draft pick.
> 
> As of now, I see the Wolves as this
> 
> ...


They haven't had luck getting FAs to come to Minnesota in the past. As I stated earlier the'll most likely be awful next year and it will take a couple of years for them to improve. Can't see them attracting any big free agents.


----------



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

JeremyB0001 said:


> I'm still not sold on their defense. This is a team that finished 18th in defensive efficiency and 24th in field goal percentage. In order to consider them title contenders and EC favorites I think you have to either project them as getting up into the top 10 in one of those categories or assembling a Suns-style offensive juggernaut. KG undoubtedly improves their D but I don't see either happening. Anyone who's that high on this team care to respond?


How many teams are there out there that are going to be able to shut down all three guys? And then do it without creating a lot of open shots for the other two guys? It's easy to stop any given guy, but all of them? And all three players are extremely efficient scorers to begin with, that's only going to go up in their new surroundings. Their defense at the 4 is now lightyears better than last year. I can easily see them being a top 10 offensive squad, so their defense won't have to be great (though that would seriously help them if they wanted to win a title).





JeremyB0001 said:


> I just don't think it'll be that easy for them to solve their depth problems. I really don't think any of those players are any good. ...
> 
> I guess that depends on how you define competent. Bell posted only a 13 PER last season (15 is the league average) and I haven't heard that Navarro is on the market. Luther's PER is better at 13.7 but still not great. If you don't have a single average or above average player on your roster outside of your three best players I think that causes some problems.


Depth is overrated. In the last 30 years three teams have won titles using depth (without having a top 5 player on their roster). Basketball isn't democracy, it's fascism. Generally speaking, the guys with the biggest weapons win. As for Bell, what the Celtics need out of the one spot, literally, is a guy that can carry the ball past the half court line and hand it to Pierce/Garnett and then knock down his open shots. That's pretty much a description of Bell. Who cares bout how well he fills a stat sheet (which is really all PER measures)? Given the big three there isn't going to be much filling to be done.




JeremyB0001 said:


> Sorry but I find that to be completely nonsensical. A young contending team like the Bulls has a far larger window for contention than an older team like the rebuilt Celtics if this deal goes through. I don't see how you can refute that outside of illogically ragging on the Bulls.


What were Pat Riley's words again? "Until MJ retires we're all playing for second,"? Kareem, Magic, Bird, & McHale dominated the 80s until Isiah hit his prime (and Bird & McHale got old/injured). Jordan, Pippen, & Hakeem dominated the 90s. Then came Shaq, Kobe, & Timmeh (and Wade). The only real exceptions were the '83 Sixers (powered by Malone's 25/15 season) and the 2004 Pistons. And really, given that the Sixers had the MVP at the center spot, Detroit's really the only exception. That's the Bulls' 10% chance right there unless they pull off a trade to land an MVP-calibre player. As for Boston they had zero shot, so I applaud them for going for broke now.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

ehmunro said:


> How many teams are there out there that are going to be able to shut down all three guys? And then do it without creating a lot of open shots for the other two guys? It's easy to stop any given guy, but all of them? And all three players are extremely efficient scorers to begin with, that's only going to go up in their new surroundings. Their defense at the 4 is now lightyears better than last year. I can easily see them being a top 10 offensive squad, so their defense won't have to be great (though that would seriously help them if they wanted to win a title).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KW8RgmEJs-8"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KW8RgmEJs-8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Boo freakin Hoo 

KG sucks arse 

He's a false prophet and in fact symbolises what's wrong with the NBA 

That interview with John Thompson where he's crying like a lil beeyatch trying to keep it real and that's he's all about winning nah nah nah ... well suck me sideways ..what a heap of bollocks

He uses all the excuses where he attributes blame with his finger pointing to people who are easy to lampoon ...but all care and no responsibility .....and he has the ignorant masses buying into his happy horseshyte that he's all about this and that and that its breaking him down , taking his soul..or some other heap or crap

I don't think he's taking the piss in some PR game or smoke and mirrors ..I just think the guy honestly believes the shyte he has manufactured out of his own ignorance 

To be kind maybe its convenient blindness 

He has willingly accepted all the quong that goes with him being one of the annointed and then ( inadvertantly and misguidlingly ) rips on the system and the structure of it that made the lil punk azzed beeytach what he is 

How about you take your large and make those pearly whites genuine and swallow your crocodile tears with John T that you think are "fo reel" and give yourself an uppercut you ingrate FK!!

And BTW ...Ray Allen is through and Paul Pierce may well be the slowest wing playing the game ..in a choice between Luol Deng..it isn't even close - give me Lu anyday and twice on Sundays

Celtics ?

Bah !

Who cares

{/end rant }


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Boo freakin Hoo
> 
> KG sucks arse
> 
> ...


Yeah! :cheers:


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> Are you serious?


About Deng owning Pierce, and Hinrich owning Allen? Heck yeah he's serious. This is from last season:

*Pierce against the Bulls*
4-13 FG, 8 pts, 3 reb, 1 ast, 4 turnovers
8-17 FG, 24 pts, 5 reb, 5 ast, 4 turnovers
2-14 FG, 8 pts, 5 reb, 5 ast, 1 turnover

*Deng against the Celtics*
9-15 FG, 19 pts, 3 reb, 6 ast, 2 turnovers
8-11 FG, 17 pts, 4 reb, 5 ast, 2 turnovers
6-11 FG, 14 pts, 6 reb, 4 ast, 3 turnovers

*Allen against Bulls*
9-28 FG, 29 pts...28 shots for 29 pts (only game last year)
I can't find archived boxscores from 2 yrs ago, but I'm pretty sure at least one of them had Allen in single digits. And I distinctly remember that game where Hinrich was all over Allen like glue.

The Garnett games aren't so pretty, but I think his point was that Joe Smith, Noah, and Tyrus are long athletic guys who we've never been able to throw at Garnett before. It might tone down the madness some.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

rainman said:


> The Celtics are pretty much going to look like the T-Wolves of a few years back who had KG, Cassell and Spree, the big differance they are in the eastern conferance now. Question i have is does this move force a counter move by Paxson?


About the only counter move I would expect from Pax on this one is to lift his left butt cheek and let one rip in mild indifference 

The only shame is is if he draws mud


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

The ROY said:


> I like our team but now it almost feels as if we HAVE to make some sort of move.
> 
> The east is getting STRONGER
> 
> ...


Pigs arse 

Rashard Lewis is an overrated string bean of pelican shyte 

The Trag are no better for him than with a gimpy Grant Hill that at even at 2/3rd's of the Sprite version of Grant Hill could still win some games 

I think the big miss for the Trag this offseason was dipping out on the Reverend Charlie Ward to help Saint Dwight lead the faithfull in the happy clappy tamborine chant bang bang pre game ritual 

Big miss there ..but that aside there still the same bunch of losers they were last season

Zach Randolph in New York ? Another successful loser . Next !

Jesus in Boston ? Sheeeyapppp! You could put a pesky Sip Rodgers on that whiny puzz and he'd still crap his dax . He ain't all that ..all he's got to rely on these days is his looks and even that ain't so special with a solar shine on that receding hairline that means the only thing he can light up is his neighbourhood power grid if that solar shine could be harnessed 

KG ? KG ! See previous comments from a few posts ago. Should have gone to New York where he and Bubba John Thompson could have done an off Broadway dog and pony show as a matinee warm up preceding home games. Freakin drama queen .

The East ? The East ?

Still as weak as piss and there for the taking

Everyone pissin in their britches about this and that are just thrills 'n spills name rooters


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> About the only counter move I would expect from Pax on this one is to lift his left butt cheek and let one rip in mild indifference
> 
> The only shame is is if he draws mud


Oh man, just got visions of Terrence and Phillip form South Park. :lol: 

Btw, after a good night's sleep I can't say I feel any differently about this trade. There is certainly a chance that some available point guard or center would revel in the chance to play with these 3 guys, but that's hardly a guarentee. Besides, who is really available to do this? Brevin Knight is the best PG I can think of, and he's injured over half the time. C-Webb is nearly done, as I think he already used what little is left.

Someone said depth is overrated? That's a load of crap. Sorry, but it is. The NBA season is a marathon, not a sprint. You think Pierce, Allen, and KG are ready to carry this team for 82 games and through the playoffs (i.e. over 100 games) without getting worn down? How do you think the Spurs have won 4 titles in recent years? Look at how well Popovich uses the Spurs' depth over 82 games. Heck, even in the playoffs he went 10 deep most games.

Three good players + garbage will not get them anywhere. And yes, their bench is terrible and possibly the worst in the entire league. Not exaggerating there. I'll re-evaluate them after using their exceptions to be fair. 

I definitley think the East has gotten better; and honestly I think this is good for us. It makes our chase more challenging, and also more rewarding. People say the Cavs' run to the Finals was a fluke (I agree, btw) and I don't want them saying it about us. And frankly, I think we're ready for the challenge (for a number of reasons I won't bore you with here).


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Thing is KG has gone from a 1st round patsy to a lottery loser who has to go East to re-establish himself as a 1st round patsy in the East 

Boston are going to get spanked like Doug Christie if he steps out of line with his ol lady


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Pigs arse
> 
> Rashard Lewis is an overrated string bean of pelican shyte
> 
> ...


Dude you're on today, lol. 

The way I see it, making trades can only get you so far. Why? Because you give something to get something. The Celtics got 2 good players, but they also lost every young asset and serviceable piece of depth they had. The Magic lost Grant Hill to get Lewis. The Knicks lost Frye to get Randolph. These are marginal improvements.

I remain unconvinced that "we HAVE to make a trade" just because "other teams are getting better." Gosh, let's make a move just to join the crowd! I'm just not willing to give up our guys so easily. We have several players who are and/or could be stars in the making. Trading them now would be sacrificing long-term value for short-term gain at low value. I only see Deng, Gordon, and Thomas' value getting HIGHER from here. I'm ok with a trade, but be picky for goodness sake. Don't settle for a sub-par offer when we have so much promise as it is.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Jesus in Boston ? Sheeeyapppp! You could put a pesky Sip Rodgers on that whiny puzz and he'd still crap his dax . He ain't all that ..all he's got to rely on these days is his looks and even that ain't so special with a solar shine on that receding hairline that means the only thing he can light up is his neighbourhood power grid if that solar shine could be harnessed


That's the funniest thing I've read in ages.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

ehmunro said:


> How many teams are there out there that are going to be able to shut down all three guys? And then do it without creating a lot of open shots for the other two guys? It's easy to stop any given guy, but all of them? And all three players are extremely efficient scorers to begin with, that's only going to go up in their new surroundings. Their defense at the 4 is now lightyears better than last year. I can easily see them being a top 10 offensive squad, so their defense won't have to be great (though that would seriously help them if they wanted to win a title).


Don't get me wrong, I think they'll be one of the 5 or 10 best offensive teams in the league. It's just that that's not good enough to be one of the three or four best teams in the league without good defense. What keeps them from being one of the one or two best offensive teams in the league is the fact that after that big three there's little left.



ehmunro said:


> Depth is overrated. In the last 30 years three teams have won titles using depth (without having a top 5 player on their roster). Basketball isn't democracy, it's fascism. Generally speaking, the guys with the biggest weapons win. As for Bell, what the Celtics need out of the one spot, literally, is a guy that can carry the ball past the half court line and hand it to Pierce/Garnett and then knock down his open shots. That's pretty much a description of Bell. Who cares bout how well he fills a stat sheet (which is really all PER measures)? Given the big three there isn't going to be much filling to be done.


1 in 10? I don't like those odds. Most Championship teams have more than three good players.



ehmunro said:


> What were Pat Riley's words again? "Until MJ retires we're all playing for second,"? Kareem, Magic, Bird, & McHale dominated the 80s until Isiah hit his prime (and Bird & McHale got old/injured). Jordan, Pippen, & Hakeem dominated the 90s. Then came Shaq, Kobe, & Timmeh (and Wade). The only real exceptions were the '83 Sixers (powered by Malone's 25/15 season) and the 2004 Pistons. And really, given that the Sixers had the MVP at the center spot, Detroit's really the only exception. That's the Bulls' 10% chance right there unless they pull off a trade to land an MVP-calibre player. As for Boston they had zero shot, so I applaud them for going for broke now.


I've also applauded Boston throughout this thread for picking a direction. I still don't agree with this idea that all teams have an equally small window to contend. I just don't see the dominant team you're talking about. Even with the most dominant teams (e.g. the old school Bulls) the second best team can give them a run for their money in a championship series. I don't see the Suns (Nash) or the Spurs (Duncan) being dominant teams for that much longer. The Mavs are the only team to be worried about and they didn't make it out of the first round last year so they're obviously not unbeatable.


----------



## anorexorcist (Aug 3, 2005)

Snake said:


> I don't think it's very good for the Wolves. They're getting Zach Randolph Jr (minus the off court stuff), either Rondo or Green both of which are only decent prospects, Ryan Gomes (you can draft a Gomes level player in the 2nd round) and a salary dump. Boston is going to be in the playoffs so their pick isn't worth much. *Minny is going to be awful next year and I don't think they even have a pick though I'm not certain.*
> 
> Why didn't McHale move him one or two years ago? Deng, Chandler and the number two pick were offered. Who knows what other teams offered or would have offered back then. Considering that since then Minnesota has done exactly jack **** it seems like a horrible move to have held on to Garnett for the past couple of years just to see his trade value fall. Of course he did help line the owners pockets for those couple years, so that's something...


FWIW the pick that Boston is sending back was originally Minnesota's anyway, so Minnesota is just getting their own pick back, I believe this was part of that Ricky Davis trade if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

:laugh: That's some prime-time ranting SKOC!


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

I think Boston is going to be a very good team. But like others I'm not very worried about them because they have little depth, their coach is Doc Rivers, they don't look to be very good defensively, and we match up really well with them. 

Noah should be able to guard KG really well (KG destroyed us last year because we had no height up front). Deng plays Pierce well. Hinrich doesn't play Allen well, but I agree with Narek that Allen should start slowing down appreciably since he's old.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

yodurk said:


> About Deng owning Pierce, and Hinrich owning Allen? Heck yeah he's serious. This is from last season:
> 
> *Pierce against the Bulls*
> 4-13 FG, 8 pts, 3 reb, 1 ast, 4 turnovers
> ...


Well the point here is that adding Garnet pretty much just washes away those other numbers because the Bulls main defensive focus would be on KG, there is no way that the Bulls can contain all 3. Bulls need to make a trade just to keep up with the fast improving east.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

i'm with the king on this one. boston? a contender? automatically winning the east? puhleeeze. don't make me spit up my latte.

we will own boston this year.

miz has spoken.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

mizenkay said:


> i'm with the king on this one. boston? a contender? automatically winning the east? puhleeeze. don't make me spit up my latte.
> 
> we will own boston this year.
> 
> miz has spoken.


:worthy:


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

liekomgj4ck said:


> <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KW8RgmEJs-8"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KW8RgmEJs-8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


Solid Post


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

No one has stopped Pierce when he is on the floor with Allen and KG. It's not the same as when he was out there with nothing. Same can be said for Hinrich on Allen.

Great moves by Boston. Now the need to use the MLE and find some role players. If they are successful at that, watch out.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

ehmunro said:


> How many teams are there out there that are going to be able to shut down all three guys? And then do it without creating a lot of open shots for the other two guys? It's easy to stop any given guy, but all of them? And all three players are extremely efficient scorers to begin with, that's only going to go up in their new surroundings. Their defense at the 4 is now lightyears better than last year. I can easily see them being a top 10 offensive squad, so their defense won't have to be great (though that would seriously help them if they wanted to win a title).


I missed this comment earlier...there's no way I'm buying this. As long as you don't let all 3 of them score 25-30 points apiece (not happening), you have a good chance of beating them. You don't have to "shut them down", just play them tough and don't let the supporting guys go off on you. Shouldn't be too hard considering THIS is the supporting cast right now:

Tony Allen
Glen Davis
Ryan Gomes
Kendrick Perkins
Leon Powe
Gabe Pruitt
Allan Ray
Rajon Rondo
Brian Scalabrine
Brian Wallace

All of these guys are late 1st or 2nd round talent. Rondo will start at PG, and maybe Gomes will start at PF (he did average 12 ppg last year) with Garnett at center. Good enough starting lineup. But man, who else do you go to? They can't all play 48 minutes a game. Nor would I expect the trio to score more than 2/3 of the team's points (that would be 22 ppg each, for 66 points between them). They need some help if they're really going to do something this year.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Okay after quickly reading the past two pages, I see two sides: Boston will not be a contender and Boston will be.

No one knows, but there is no question offensively they will be lethal. Its rare to see three 20ppg+ scorers at the end of their prime on the same team. They just need competent role players around these guys. Rondo at worse will be a great backup PG. They need to add the PJ Browns, etc, who can just fill a void but not hurt that position. 

I was talking to a friend last night, and I think Boston can end up with anywhere from the 1 seed to the 5 seed. It comes down to who else they add. Come playoff time, if they have tired legs, they might lose a round earlier. But, you can't underestimate their trio. You just can't.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

yodurk said:


> I missed this comment earlier...there's no way I'm buying this. As long as you don't let all 3 of them score 25-30 points apiece (not happening), you have a good chance of beating them. You don't have to "shut them down", just play them tough and don't let the supporting guys go off on you. Shouldn't be too hard considering THIS is the supporting cast right now
> 
> 
> > Agree. If you can shut down their supporting cast, they you will win. But easier said than done since any of their trio can go off for 30+ any night, especially since they aren't the sole focus of their teams anymore.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

theanimal23 said:


> Agree. If you can shut down their supporting cast, they you will win. But easier said than done since any of their trio can go off for 30+ any night, especially since they aren't the sole focus of their teams anymore.


I'm not trying to underestimate what Pierce, Allen, or Garnett can do as individuals. All 3 have a few good years left. What I'm disputing is that the Celtics, as they stand now, have the surrounding pieces to do anything meaningful. This will hold them back. This isn't like the 2001 Lakers where it's good veteran role players filling minutes outside of Shaq and Kobe. These are young inexperienced players who are still learning the NBA. I only say this because it was mentioned in this thread that the Celtics might possibly have "good" depth this season. 

The other thing, which was already mentioned, is that I like how the Chicago Bulls match up with this squad. It's already been mentioned how Deng and Hinrich in particular have handled Pierce and Allen considerably well. We also have a better frontline than the past few years which should contain KG more than we have. Our depth absolutely trumps theirs. I would be very surprised if they gave us much trouble next season, in terms of head-on matchups (that's not to say they won't be near us in the standings which is possible).


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

This is fairly simple for me.

Their big three will average about 60-65PPG this season.

Our big three will average about 60-65PPG this season.

We have andres Nocioni who is better than anyone on their bench--by a wide margin.

We have Ben Wallace, who is better than any of their remaining starters.....by a wide margin.

We have chris duhon, who MAY IN FACT be better than their STARTING PG.

We have......Thomas and Noah, who are likely better by a wide margin, than anyone on their bench....

Do I need to continue?


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Well it doesn't really work like that The Krakken, but I understand how you're thinking. I think it matters more if the Bulls and Celtics play close games. In the 4th quarter, the Bulls have two go-to players (Gordon and Deng) and the Celtics will have two as well (KG is not a go-to player). However, if it were me, given their track records I'd rather have Pierce and Allen in crunch time, more notably because of Pierce's penchant for getting to the line.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

yodurk said:


> I missed this comment earlier...there's no way I'm buying this. As long as you don't let all 3 of them score 25-30 points apiece (not happening), you have a good chance of beating them. You don't have to "shut them down", just play them tough and don't let the supporting guys go off on you. Shouldn't be too hard considering THIS is the supporting cast right now:
> 
> Tony Allen
> Glen Davis
> ...


Subtract Gomes(in the trade) and Ray(cut) from that list. So really outside of the Pierce, Allen, KG combo the Celtics have Rajon Rondo, Tony Allen, Gabe Pruitt, Kendrick Perins, and Brian Scalabrine as their major players. Perhaps they bring in Webber and another point with the MLE, but still, the Lakers and Spurs had ten guys who could play at a high level. Rondo can't shoot, Allen is a solid defensive guy but doesn't bring much else, Pruitt is a rookie who wasn't exactly a standout at USC, Perkins is a bum, and Scalabrine doesn't need to be insulted.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Allen is getting up there, but he posted an efficient 21 PER last season on a crumby Sonics team. I think he’ll relish becoming the 3rd banana. Ray Allen as the 3rd banana…. Wow.

I would think that Allen, PP and Garnett with two role players would be a very tough matchup for any team to deal with.

Yah, the depth of these Celtics is an issue and none of these players are young anymore… but these were 3 of the top 25 most productive players in the league last season. And, its been a long, long time (if ever) since they have played in a game where the main intent of the opposing team isn’t stopping them. The floor is going to look a lot more open than usual for all 3 of these players this year.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

i am impressed with Ainge(finally) In the past I was not sure what he was trying to do. 

With the two trades he made, Bst is much better than they were last year. Not as deep but much better starters. 

Garnett had Sprewell and Cassell at one time. What did that team do? How much better will Pierce/Allen be than Cassell/Sprewell? Pierce is younger. Jesus is getting up their in age; however, he can still hit the J. 

Offensively, Bst will be hard to deal with! If healthy they should be one of the top 4 teams in the east. 

Will be interesting to see what they do this season.


----------



## Snake (Jun 10, 2007)

anorexorcist said:


> FWIW the pick that Boston is sending back was originally Minnesota's anyway, so Minnesota is just getting their own pick back, I believe this was part of that Ricky Davis trade if I'm not mistaken.


So Minny is giving up KG just to get their own pick back. :lol: That is funny on so many levels. Damn, they're gonna tank their *** off next year.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I would think that Allen, PP and Garnett with two role players would be a very tough matchup for any team to deal with.


Yes, but the issue is more about what to do for the other 10-15 minutes that any one of them will not be on the floor. Those could prove to be critical gaps of play where any lead they build up is lost, or any close score or deficit goes down the gutter. If I'm Skiles, I'm licking my chops at the Nocioni versus Scalabrine matchup, lol.



> The floor is going to look a lot more open than usual for all 3 of these players this year.


I think one thing most folks will agree on is that each of their scoring will go down, but efficiency will go up. Allen and Pierce have seen their FG% slipping in recent years to the 43% territory. As a perimeter threat you ideally want to be in the 46% range (and figure 3-pt shooting bumps up your eFG the rest of the way). With Garnett the likely candidate for facilitating the offense, I suspect shot attempts for Pierce and Allen will dip considerably, but shooting percentages will go up with better looks and less tendency to force shots. I could see Allen putting up 20 ppg on 48-49% shooting, and Pierce around 22 ppg on 46-47% (down from their 25-26 ppg last year). Garnett will likely hang around the 22 ppg range like usual. But alot of these openings will rely on how well they can share the ball. KG doesn't concern me; Allen does a little, and Pierce does the most.


----------



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

yodurk said:


> Someone said depth is overrated? That's a load of crap. Sorry, but it is. The NBA season is a marathon, not a sprint.


Go back thirty years, pick out all the NBA title winners that managed it without either an MVP-calibre player, or a top 5 player in the NBA (or two or three). You will find exactly three. You can go 15 deep for all I ****ing care, and if you don't have that MVP-calibre guy the odds tell me that you have a 10% chance (at best) to win a title. In the last 25 years there's really only one exception, meaning you can argue the the chances would be closer to 4%. San Antonio's "depth" wouldn't win jack **** if Timmeh wasn't there. Just as Cleveland would be fighting to keep its head above water without James. The 2006 Heat had eight guys that played more than a thousand minutes, including James Posey, the remains of Gary Payton, Jason Williams and Antoine ****ing Walker. Those aren't great players, hell, they're not even really good. What they are is vets that don't screw up. That's basically what San Antonio has after you get past Timmeh/TP/Manu. Depth is overrated. If you don't have the starpower at the top of your rotation your odds of winning are pretty ****ing small.



yodurk said:


> The other thing, which was already mentioned, is that I like how the Chicago Bulls match up with this squad. It's already been mentioned how Deng and Hinrich in particular have handled Pierce and Allen considerably well. We also have a better frontline than the past few years which should contain KG more than we have.


It was easy on Hinrich & Deng in the past because the Celtics and Sonics were crappy teams that over-relied on a single player to carry them. Hinrich and Deng always got all the help they needed in those situations. That won't be the case now. The Celtics will have three players on the floor that necessitate double coverage. Life just got a lot harder for Deng & Hinrich.



T.Shock said:


> the Lakers and Spurs had ten guys who could play at a high level.


Give me a break, what the **** was Francisco Elson "playing at a high level"? Because it sure as hell wasn't basketball. Or Beno Udrih? Or Fabricio Oberto? Or Bruce Bowen for that matter, he's not even the defender that he was five years ago. All they are is vets that don't screw up (or, in Udrih's case, _not so vets that do screw up_). They're a pretty easy commodity to come by. The Celtics can sign two this year, and still add another one or two next year. If you have three all stars, it isn't hard to find vets that don't screw up to put around them.



JeremyB0001 said:


> Don't get me wrong, I think they'll be one of the 5 or 10 best offensive teams in the league. It's just that that's not good enough to be one of the three or four best teams in the league without good defense. What keeps them from being one of the one or two best offensive teams in the league is the fact that after that big three there's little left.


I believe that I explicitly granted the point about their defense (if they were serious about playing for a title). The Celtics are still working on adding more, I believe I pointed out that they needed a Charlie Bell-type player at the 1 (for proper floor spacing). I think they view 2009 as their target year, because they still need to add more depth, and give Pruitt a chance to ramp up. I don't think they'll be a top 5 offensive squad this year, because they still need to do some fill work. If Glen Davis is serious about his conditioning, he'd be a big help as a low post scorer in 2009, as Pruitt will be as a depth guard that year. After that it would be a matter of who Garnett, Pierce, and Allen were able to convince to come to Boston.



JeremyB0001 said:


> Most Championship teams have more than three good players.


In the last quarter century one team has won a title without an MVP calibre player on its roster. That's the reality of the NBA. No matter how good your team is from 2-15, if #1 isn't one of the best you're not likely to go anywhere. The thinner you are at the top, the more depth you need to be competitive. The inverse is also true, the more talent you have t the top, the less you need after that (see the 2006 Heat).



JeremyB0001 said:


> Even with the most dominant teams (e.g. the old school Bulls) the second best team can give them a run for their money in a championship series. I don't see the Suns (Nash) or the Spurs (Duncan) being dominant teams for that much longer. The Mavs are the only team to be worried about and they didn't make it out of the first round last year so they're obviously not unbeatable.


But this is the point where the field's wide open. Miami got their title and their vets are breaking down (and they haven't yet replaced them). Danny Ferry ****ed the poodle in Cleveland, but either he'll learn to stop believing his own bull**** or the Cavs will hire someone competent to take his place or James will walk away and sign someplace else where he'll have a better shot. Timmeh isn't getting any younger, so San Antonio is theoretically slowing down. The reality is that the best young players in the game are James, Wade, Amare, Anthony and probably Oden and Durant (obviously, despite filling the stat sheet Anthony can't carry a team the way that Wade and James can, but he's still a great great player). They're the future. If you don't have one of them, your time is now. Boston realised this and went for broke. My guess is that Paxson will realise this and finally trade some of his superfluous depth for someone like Kobe to put Chicago in contention. 15 legit NBA rotation guys aren't going to get the Bulls anywhere, because six or seven of them will be spending more time watching the games than anything else anyways. An eight or nine man rotation headed by Kobe makes them a legit contender. Hell, even Gasol would be an improvement (though obviously Bryant's better).


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

ehmunro said:


> Go back thirty years, pick out all the NBA title winners that managed it without either an MVP-calibre player, or a top 5 player in the NBA (or two or three). You will find exactly three. You can go 15 deep for all I ****ing care, and if you don't have that MVP-calibre guy the odds tell me that you have a 10% chance (at best) to win a title. In the last 25 years there's really only one exception, meaning you can argue the the chances would be closer to 4%. San Antonio's "depth" wouldn't win jack **** if Timmeh wasn't there. Just as Cleveland would be fighting to keep its head above water without James. The 2006 Heat had eight guys that played more than a thousand minutes, including James Posey, the remains of Gary Payton, Jason Williams and Antoine ****ing Walker. Those aren't great players, hell, they're not even really good. What they are is vets that don't screw up. That's basically what San Antonio has after you get past Timmeh/TP/Manu. Depth is overrated. If you don't have the starpower at the top of your rotation your odds of winning are pretty ****ing small.


Well that's quite a bit different than what you originally said, or how I understood ya at least. Yeah, I think it's quite obvious that teams with a bonafide star player or two are far more probable to win a title.

Where I disagreed is your "depth is overrated" comment. On the contrary, I think that good depth is vital to winning a title. If you over rely on 2-3 players and the other 5-7 players in your rotation aren't pulling their weight, the team is most likely not winning a title. End of story. (As this pertains to the Celtics, I see little chance of their other guys pulling their weight at the necessary level...very bad for a trio of players age 30 and beyond).

Over the course of 82 games in particular, it's important to have stop gaps at nearly every position, as this preserves the energy of your better players without sacrificing much record-wise. The Spurs are the epitome of this. Duncan only played 34 min/game last year, and boy was he ready for the playoffs. I'm not sure he'd be as ready if he played 40 min/game.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

I'm not worried about Pierce or Allen.
Anyone who's watched the Bulls will recall (with amazement) how effective Deng is on Pierce without help.
And Kirk is perfect to match up with Allen, he'll hound and chase him around screens and picks and make him work for open shots.
Allen isn't the big, physical, athletic guard that gives Kirk the most trouble.

We've never had to triple team or do anything extraordinary to slow them down.
It's also comforting knowing we can leave Rondo wide open and help with his defender.
Shooting 20-ish from the three point line, go for it man.

I am worried about KG beasting us up, as he always seems to do.
Having to help on him could mean big numbers for Perkins.


----------



## Samael (Sep 1, 2005)

The Krakken said:


> This is fairly simple for me.
> 
> Their big three will average about 60-65PPG this season.
> 
> ...


All you said here is absolutely true. 

Except that their big three is better than your big three --by an astronomical margin.
And their big three is 4,3,2 which is inside/out yours is all perimeter 3,2,1.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

Samael said:


> All you said here is absolutely true.
> 
> Except that their big three is better than your big three --by an astronomical margin.
> And their big three is 4,3,2 which is inside/out yours is all perimeter 3,2,1.


I don't know mate, Ben Wallace is a pretty important guy on the bulls. And he isn't perimter. You've heard of him right?


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

I think the Celtics will do well for the regular season, but won't do a whole lot of damage in the playoffs. The reason being: Glenn "Doc" Rivers. He's GOT to win games and win them this season. Expectations for the Celtics are going to be Championship or Bust. The only way Rivers can win games is to ride his Big 3 hard and often during the course of the season. If the Celts are to win 55+ games this year, Garnett, Allen and Pierce are going to have to log 35+ mins a night. Probably closer to 40 mins a night. Those three guys plus some NBDL rejects ought to be enough to get you anywhere from 50-60 wins during the regular season when most teams are going at 80% effort.

Come playoff time, the effort gets ratched up to 100%. Those guys aren't going to have much left in the tank after Rivers has kept them going for so many minutes during the season. The Celts better hope they're a #1 or #2 seed so that they can have an easier time in the first round or they may well get bounced early.

Helluva trade by Ainge. Ballsy move - that's for sure but why not shoot the works when you've got nothing left to lose. They guy was gone after another year of losing anyways. Glenn Rivers doesn't have that luxury. The coach always gets the blame when a team loses. Doc knows it's win now or be fired so he'll ride his meal-ticket Big 3 and win, just like he's supposed to but they'll have nothing left for the stretch run and they'll be left in the dust looking at the teams that have the ability/energy to finish.


----------



## Samael (Sep 1, 2005)

liekomgj4ck said:


> I don't know mate, Ben Wallace is a pretty important guy on the bulls. And he isn't perimter. You've heard of him right?


No, I haven't heard of Ben Wallace who is he??

When I said Big Three I was talking about scoring since he mentioned that the Bulls big three will score 65 PPG. Ben Wallace gonna drop 20 PPG a night for you?? :lol: care to educate me on that??


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Hinrich, Deng, and Gordon will not put up sixty points, regardless.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Samael said:


> All you said here is absolutely true.
> 
> Except that their big three is better than your big three --by an astronomical margin.
> And their big three is 4,3,2 which is inside/out yours is all perimeter 3,2,1.


An astronomical margin? I don't know about that. I'll take Deng over Pierce any day of the week. Gordon is pretty close to Jesus - the differences between the two aren't all _that_ great. Garnett owns anyone on our frontcourt - I'll give you that. Hinrich/Duhon is far better than whatever Boston has at the starting/bench PG position. I'll take Ben Wallace handily over Perkins. The Benches are where you could use a term like astronomically different and the Bulls bench is waaaayyyyy better than anything Boston could possibly field.


----------



## Samael (Sep 1, 2005)

fl_flash said:


> An astronomical margin? I don't know about that. I'll take Deng over Pierce any day of the week. Gordon is pretty close to Jesus - the differences between the two aren't all _that_ great. Garnett owns anyone on our frontcourt - I'll give you that. Hinrich/Duhon is far better than whatever Boston has at the starting/bench PG position. I'll take Ben Wallace handily over Perkins. The Benches are where you could use a term like astronomically different and the Bulls bench is waaaayyyyy better than anything Boston could possibly field.


I never disputed the fact that the Bulls bench is way better, that is why I said in my original post that everything he said there was absolutely true; you might wanna try rereading it again.

The only thing I disagreed was that the Bulls big scoring three is as good as Boston's which it isn't; Boston's big three has 22 AllStar appearances between the three of them while Chicago's not single one.

Deng being better than Pierce, well you got me there.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Premier said:


> Hinrich, Deng, and Gordon will not put up sixty points, regardless.


They put up 57/game last year. You're that sure they don't have 3 points of improvement this year? That seems kinda silly.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

It's clear Boston will have depth issues next year. It's also clear, that at least for the short run, they will be much, much, much better. Whether that improvement will be enough to make them contenders, we'll have to see, but the improvement will be very substantial.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Brevin Knight seems like a nice FA to go after, if healthy I guess they have to resign the Kandi man? 

Knight / Rondo
R Allen / T Allen
PP / Powe
Garnett / ???
Perkins / Kandi

Rondo, Allen and Pow are all good young players.

They need to land a vet PG. They are screwed at center, unless Perkins makes strides. Of course, with Allen, PP and Garnett come playoff time in the East, you prolly just need a non-stiff.

That team is not 10 deep… but it is 8 deep which is all you need in the playoffs. The real problem is center.


----------



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

yodurk said:


> Well that's quite a bit different than what you originally said, or how I understood ya at least. Yeah, I think it's quite obvious that teams with a bonafide star player or two are far more probable to win a title.


How many other ways could my remarks about needing an MVP-calibre talent be interpreted?



yodurk said:


> Where I disagreed is your "depth is overrated" comment. On the contrary, I think that good depth is vital to winning a title. If you over rely on 2-3 players and the other 5-7 players in your rotation aren't pulling their weight, the team is most likely not winning a title. End of story. (As this pertains to the Celtics, I see little chance of their other guys pulling their weight at the necessary level...very bad for a trio of players age 30 and beyond).


The thing is, for most of the recent title winners, either their depth didn't weigh very much or I'm right, and you can win a title with Luc frigging Longley in the starting lineup so long as the top of your rotation is good.



yodurk said:


> Over the course of 82 games in particular, it's important to have stop gaps at nearly every position, as this preserves the energy of your better players without sacrificing much record-wise. The Spurs are the epitome of this. Duncan only played 34 min/game last year, and boy was he ready for the playoffs. I'm not sure he'd be as ready if he played 40 min/game.


This merits a "So?" Because their stopgaps were Francisco Elson & Fabricio Oberto. In other words, guys that couldn't "pull their weight". It's just not hard to find vet roleplayers. What is tough to find are the guys at the top of the rotation. The MVP-calibre guys. There just aren't a lot of them.


----------



## Snake (Jun 10, 2007)

ehmunro said:


> This merits a "So?" Because their stopgaps were Francisco Elson & Fabricio Oberto. In other words, guys that couldn't "pull their weight". It's just not hard to find vet roleplayers. What is tough to find are the guys at the top of the rotation. The MVP-calibre guys. There just aren't a lot of them.


The Spurs had Elson, Oberto and Horry playing alongside Duncan at PF/C. These three totaled 13.3ppg and 12.9 rpg. The Celtics only have Perkins to play along KG.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

> In exchange for Garnett, the Celtics will send forwards Al Jefferson and Ryan Gomes, swingman Gerald Green, guard Sebastian Telfair, center Theo Ratliff, two future first-round picks and cash considerations to the Timberwolves.
> 
> Minnesota will receive Boston's 2009 first-round selection and the first-round pick it traded away to the Celtics in a January 2006 deal.


Now that I know the exact details of the trade, I'd have to say Minny got a nice return for KG. I didn't know Boston owned one of Minny's 1st rounders. Getting that back could be huge. Gomes & Green weren't in the originally reported deal, both of whom are nice young players on cheap contracts. 

The T-Wolves must have a bunch of open roster spots to pull off a 5 for 1 deal.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Minny's return isn't all that bad since it's clear that they're simply blowing it up and starting over, but man oh man are they going to be brutal this year. And I'm not sure "'Sota" is going to be a prime free agent destination when/if they clear cap space.

But...I guess...what choice did they have? They have a decent nucleus of talented players, but none of them have proven much, other than maybe Jefferson. And all he proved is that he can put up numbers on a bad team.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

The best player in the deal not named Garnett is Gerald Green

He has a real chance to be one of the league's elite wings


----------



## souleater (Apr 21, 2007)

guess what,in the press conference right now they asked kg about the east and the only team he did not mentioned as contenders,guess which was,yes,us:azdaja: :azdaja: :azdaja: :azdaja:


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Question was asked during the KG press conference about why Boston over other cities and he goes 'I have a home in Malib but with LA, the Kobe situation is up in the air"


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

from where i sit, there's no losers in this scenario and here's why;

regardless of what minnesota up until now decided what the price for garnett would be, it clearly was an organizational decision to *start over*; regardless of where criticism and blame lie, it's the decision that ultimately some teams HAVE to take after not getting where they wanted with a superstar. it happened to barkley and iverson just to name a couple. it happens. the timing of it, in my mind precludes any "woulda, coulda, should's" out of this scenario. garnett wasn't meant to play for the bulls.

imo, there is no more crucial element in minny's moving forward than the correct selection of coach for this group. truth be told, they have so many guys who need to be coached as though they were college players, yet allowing for the nba talent to shine, firm rules, concepts and fundamental team play is a proven methodology for success. 

seeing as they no longer have that (at least in name) "superstar" i'd suggest that the detroit (and more recently) chicago models are, at the blueprint level, a reasonable path to winning. the most talented players, strongest personalities ultimately emerge but, as a young team they'll need a coach with a clear philosophy and more importantly, one who's ideas/ideals are going to coincide with mchale's (no easy task looking at mchale's record of success, unfortunately). yes, i am inferring that a coach like scott skiles could profit from such a move.

but i won't go there.....

conversly, the celtics were clearly not going to compete in the near future with the young group they had. i never believed in much of their talent's potential, but that's just me. the bottom line is they got worse when they should've have been getting better.

it's important for me to state here that IF, i repeat, IF the bulls core had performed in any way, shape, form or fashion like the youngs of the celtics, i would have been an advocate of shipping out 4-5 guys with no remorse. 

that didn't happen. 

but from ainge's point of view, the similarity to mchale's plight is kind of unique because ainge had a group of kids who pierce couldn't will into the playoffs, quite a few guys who were consistently inconsistent (i disagree on green; highly overrated, a young harold miner) and it was clear the c's just weren't going to be relevant any time soon.

it could have been ainge's play for allen that set the whole thing in motion; ainge feeling the need to do something significant, pressure from the fans, pierce et al. i believe the garnett move is a swing for the fence move that gets danny off the hook for the failures of the youngsters, rejuvenates the franchise, tickets, fan interest, nba interest; it's just an all around good move for the league, not to mention the eastern conference.

down the road, who knows what will happen; that has to be the philosophy, but regardless the c's will be doing it with *other* young players after this run is over. but a run it will definitely be.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Damn solid post Bullhitter.

You're right regarding Bulls core vs Boston's core and how getting Ray Allen set up the KG trade because they kept their two most valuable assets (Theo and Al Jefferson)


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

theanimal23 said:


> Question was asked during the KG press conference about why Boston over other cities and he goes 'I have a home in Malib but with LA, the Kobe situation is up in the air"


When there were reports of a possible KG to LA deal awhile back, there was a rumor that Kobe called KG and told him not to go there. Supposedly Kobe still wanted out even if the Lakers got KG. Maybe there was something to that based on the KG quote you just posted.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

SALO said:


> When there were reports of a possible KG to LA deal awhile back, there was a rumor that Kobe called KG and told him not to go there. Supposedly Kobe still wanted out even if the Lakers got KG. Maybe there was something to that based on the KG quote you just posted.


I was thinking the same thing. The question wasn't asked outright regarding LA. The reporter asked KG what changed his mind about Boston and why Boston was put to the side in the intial reports come Draft Day. KG talked about how he has a home in Malibu but the Kobe situation is in the air. He then brushed off LA and Phoenix as nice places to visit, which makes no sense since he essentially has a home in LA. But he had to do that to make Boston look nice. I think Boston was in the mix from the start, but it became the obvious choice with Ray Allen becoming a Celtic in the weak east. I do think KG would have initially wanted Phoenix, and then LA because he lives there and it's Kobe. 

His statement did make me think about the Kobe-KG-phone call story and it might be true. It will be interesting to see if anything develops along this situation. It will take some heavy pouting/sitting out from Kobe's side to get this done.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Here it is:



> "Why did you decide this was going to happen?"





> "...No one wants to be in a situation that you can't be successful. I'm no different from that...trying to find the best scenario for myself...I do have a place in L.A. L.A. is L.A. I can't... Knowing that Kobe's situation is up in the air, you know Phoenix, I mean all those places are beautiful places to visit and live...but when you speak on basketball...it's a no-brainer, there's no way I was going to be able play on another team in this league and have the two caliber players that I have"


----------



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

Snake said:


> The Spurs had Elson, Oberto and Horry playing alongside Duncan at PF/C. These three totaled 13.3ppg and 12.9 rpg. The Celtics only have Perkins to play along KG.


Kendrick Perkins, Leon Powe, and Moobs Scalabrine averaged a combined 12.8 p/g & 10.7 r/g. Either the Spurs vaunted depth is garbage or Boston's depth is better than you're giving credit for. Or maybe all San Antonio has around their big three are vets that don't screw up, and not the vast collection of quality that people have been claiming.



SausageKingofChicago said:


> The best player in the deal not named Garnett is Gerald Green. He has a real chance to be one of the [strike]league's[/strike] ABA's elite wings


There, fixed that for you.



theanimal23 said:


> His statement did make me think about the Kobe-KG-phone call story and it might be true. It will be interesting to see if anything develops along this situation. It will take some heavy pouting/sitting out from Kobe's side to get this done.


Yeah, it looks like Kobe wants to come East. I'm not sure what sort of deal Paxson could make for him, but he should make the pitch as it would put Chicago at the top of the eastern slagheap.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

ehmunro said:


> Go back thirty years, pick out all the NBA title winners that managed it without either an MVP-calibre player, or a top 5 player in the NBA (or two or three). You will find exactly three. You can go 15 deep for all I ****ing care, and if you don't have that MVP-calibre guy the odds tell me that you have a 10% chance (at best) to win a title. In the last 25 years there's really only one exception, meaning you can argue the the chances would be closer to 4%. San Antonio's "depth" wouldn't win jack **** if Timmeh wasn't there. Just as Cleveland would be fighting to keep its head above water without James. The 2006 Heat had eight guys that played more than a thousand minutes, including James Posey, the remains of Gary Payton, Jason Williams and Antoine ****ing Walker. Those aren't great players, hell, they're not even really good. What they are is vets that don't screw up. That's basically what San Antonio has after you get past Timmeh/TP/Manu. Depth is overrated. If you don't have the starpower at the top of your rotation your odds of winning are pretty ****ing small.


Everyone always says this but I think it's a flawed argument. Most good teams are built with superstars because that's the easy way to build a successful team. However, a team like the Bulls are already a 49 win team without a superstar. In order to actually support your argument you can't just say that teams with superstars always win titles because if 85% of the teams in the playoffs each season have a superstar then obviously most teams that win titles are going to have a superstar. That doesn't prove that teams without superstars underachieve. 

Take a look at the teams that won as many games as the Bulls last season: Dallas (Dirk), Houston (Yao and TMac), San An (Duncan), Phoenix (Nash), and Cleveland (Bron). Now I've just made a case that it's highly unlikely (2 in 7 chance) that you'll win 49 games without a superstar but two teams did it last year and will do it again next year. Also, defining a superstar is extremely arbitrary so the argument just devolves into semantics.



ehmunro said:


> I believe that I explicitly granted the point about their defense (if they were serious about playing for a title). The Celtics are still working on adding more, I believe I pointed out that they needed a Charlie Bell-type player at the 1 (for proper floor spacing). I think they view 2009 as their target year, because they still need to add more depth, and give Pruitt a chance to ramp up. I don't think they'll be a top 5 offensive squad this year, because they still need to do some fill work. If Glen Davis is serious about his conditioning, he'd be a big help as a low post scorer in 2009, as Pruitt will be as a depth guard that year. After that it would be a matter of who Garnett, Pierce, and Allen were able to convince to come to Boston.


Hmm. Sounds like we agree that they're roughly a 47 or 50 win team this season, maybe 55 wins if things break right. 

I find your optimistic view of available free agent talent and the development of their young players to be a little bit insane. There's nothing wrong with Pruitt and Davis but these guys are late first rounders so the odds aren't in favor of them becoming much better than decent sixth or seventh men. What makes you think they'll pan out so much more than the Celtics other late first round picks, most of whom had much higher upside (Green, Perkins, etc.)



ehmunro said:


> In the last quarter century one team has won a title without an MVP calibre player on its roster. That's the reality of the NBA. No matter how good your team is from 2-15, if #1 isn't one of the best you're not likely to go anywhere. The thinner you are at the top, the more depth you need to be competitive. The inverse is also true, the more talent you have t the top, the less you need after that (see the 2006 Heat).


You can ride your starters harder in the playoffs but the criticism isn't that Boston doesn't have a good 9th man, it's that they don't have any good players after the big three. You can't just hide your 4-8 players in a playoff series.



ehmunro said:


> But this is the point where the field's wide open. Miami got their title and their vets are breaking down (and they haven't yet replaced them). Danny Ferry ****ed the poodle in Cleveland, but either he'll learn to stop believing his own bull**** or the Cavs will hire someone competent to take his place or James will walk away and sign someplace else where he'll have a better shot. Timmeh isn't getting any younger, so San Antonio is theoretically slowing down. The reality is that the best young players in the game are James, Wade, Amare, Anthony and probably Oden and Durant (obviously, despite filling the stat sheet Anthony can't carry a team the way that Wade and James can, but he's still a great great player). They're the future. If you don't have one of them, your time is now. Boston realised this and went for broke. My guess is that Paxson will realise this and finally trade some of his superfluous depth for someone like Kobe to put Chicago in contention. 15 legit NBA rotation guys aren't going to get the Bulls anywhere, because six or seven of them will be spending more time watching the games than anything else anyways. An eight or nine man rotation headed by Kobe makes them a legit contender. Hell, even Gasol would be an improvement (though obviously Bryant's better).


The East might be "wide open" but we seem to agree that Boston is about a 50 win team next season and that means they probably won't even finish first in the division. The Bulls, Cavs, Pistons, and maybe even Raptors could all be better than them. The Celtics would have very low odds of beating Phoenix, Dallas, or San An in a seven game series. Duncan is 31, about the same age as Boston's big three, so the Celtics will be aging right along with him. You have to be a 60 win team to have a good shot at a title and I think it's pretty clear Boston doesn't fit that bill.



Premier said:


> Hinrich, Deng, and Gordon will not put up sixty points, regardless.


Are you sure about that? They average 56.8 last season and they're 22, 24, and 26 years old. Each of them raising their scoring about a point a game doesn't sound too shocking to me. 



souleater said:


> guess what,in the press conference right now they asked kg about the east and the only team he did not mentioned as contenders,guess which was,yes,us:azdaja: :azdaja: :azdaja: :azdaja:


Heh. I think people will start to feel stupid for ignoring us pretty soon.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

ehmunro said:


> Yeah, it looks like Kobe wants to come East. I'm not sure what sort of deal Paxson could make for him, but he should make the pitch as it would put Chicago at the top of the eastern slagheap.


During the KG press conference and RealGM's Wiretap has an article, it said Chicago made a last effort to go for KG.Now, one rumor mentioned by Sam Smith, a writer who gets little credibility because he makes up a lot of trades/scenarios, mentioned the Bulls were essentially offering Thomas, Noah, future 1st, and fillers for KG.

Now with Kobe he has a No Trade Clause and he has said Chicago is his top choice, I am pretty sure Paxson will make an effort if he is available. The big issue is, what does Buss *want *if he even contemplates a trade.

I personally would put anyone and anything on the table minus Hinrich, Deng, Thomas, and Wallace. I want them to surround Kobe in my starting 5. But, I am not sure if that even gets it done. Chicago can offer some cheap packages were essentially we give up Gordon and nothing else of significant value to make it work CBA wise. 

But deals that might entertain LA if value is an issue, has to start with either:

Deng or Gordon
Thomas or Noah
Thabo Sefolosha

I am not sure if they would want Big Ben, and I think Kobe would want him here. I think Pax truly believes we need a superstar to win it all. I think an offer Paxson would throw out there would be:

Noah, Gordon, and Thabo to start with. Duhon and Viktor would need to go.

I don't know if that entices LA.

The best scenario for Chicago is if Kobe doesn't care about his paycheck (not happening) and he holds out.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

KG mentioned in his press conference that he talked to Antoine Walker and Gary Payton about the city of Boston before being traded. I'm sure within the two months (Draft Day to Today), that Mitch Kupchak and Kevin McHale talked. As Bucher once said, not even KG coming to LA would keep Kobe in Hollywood. The two have had to talked. Now, I definitely think the Boston offer is immensely better than the Lakers offer. But, I'm sure the Lakers offer wasn't rejected immediately and KG gave it some thought. After all, no trade would happen without him signing an extension with Boston. The Boston deal became easier to accept after Allen's arrival. Now, I'm not sure if KG preferred Kobe and LA to Boston with Pierce and Allen. I sure as hell would prefer Boston if my goal is to win a ring.

But its just some thoughts. Nothing may very well happen as the Lakers will never get an equal value in terms of profit/revenue, the more important thing. Basketball wise, they need to rebuild regardless. They failed to put around the right team next to Kobe. Odom isn't great, and Bynum may take a long time to (if he) develop. JO is not going to save that franchise.

Which reminds me, Bullybullz, this is one of those cases where a team needs to rebuild and forget about making the playoffs. They have nothing that will get them past the 2nd round if they can somehow win a 1st round series.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Watch @ 3:19 into the video or about 42 secs remaining, if you want to hear the Kobe comment

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sF_3fzNO54E"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sF_3fzNO54E" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Boo freakin Hoo
> 
> KG sucks arse
> 
> ...


You have some serious issues. If he is such an ***, why doesn't he demand a trade like Kobe??? He has been loyal to the T-Wolves but the T-Wolves have made one bad move after another, the Michael Olowakandi signing, the Hudson contract, trade for Marko Jaric just to name a few, oh and don't forget the Joe Smith contract scandal which robbed the Wolves from numerous first round picks. You gonna blame all this on KG?? WTF


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

yodurk said:


> About Deng owning Pierce, and Hinrich owning Allen? Heck yeah he's serious. This is from last season:
> 
> *Pierce against the Bulls*
> 4-13 FG, 8 pts, 3 reb, 1 ast, 4 turnovers
> ...


You know signing Joe Smith just made it that much smarter when it comes to the Bulls because now Smith can guard KG (who knows his weaknesses and strengths after all those practices with and against each other). I can't wait to see this match-up in the near future. If for some reason it isn't working, we could always put the muscular 4 time DPOY Ben Wallace on KG.:biggrin: :biggrin:


----------



## mgolding (Jul 20, 2002)

Jordan, Pippen and Rodman vs Allen, Pierce and Garnett
I'd give it to the Bulls trio quite clearly but with the east as it is the Boston Trio could be near to as dominant. Garnett will be absolutely amazing in the east. No more 4 games against Duncan, Stoudamire, Brand, Dirk, Boozer and Gasol. The only question that remains is the other 7 or so guys who need to play some minutes.

Assuming Tony Allen is healthy they're sitting ok on their wings. They've got gaping holes are at centre and point guard. 

I'm not convinced that Rondo is the ideal half court guy for them at PG. They need to find themselves a 3pt shooting PG who can make the most of the easy looks that they can get out of playing KG in the post and having Allen and Pierce spreading the floor. A Rondo/3pt shooter combination would give them a nice balance, and regardless of who started, the ability to play at different paces.

At centre a healthy Chris Mihm would be a pretty nice option for them. They don’t need a prolific rebounder or shot blocker. A guy who can hit a mid range jump shot, fill a decent proportion of the lane and pass the ball with some smarts is what would fit best beside this trio of stars.

(If you haven't noticed I'm trying to rebuild the 90s Bulls)

My point with these three stars is that they don’t need players to make plays, set up their offence or be an amazing presence on the court. They should just try to fill their holes with players who can be useful with limited opportunities and make the opposition pay for paying to much attention to the stars.

If Celtics management bulk at going into luxury tax then I would question why they even bothered with the trades. The team as it is shouldn't be able to win a championship and will be atrocious in 5 years, so they need to expend all their resources on adding to the roster right now.

Then there’s one more critical question: Is Doc Rivers the right coach for this team? Ideally Phil Jackson would be available (and I mean that in all seriousness) but who else would do a better job. In my opinion, the list would at least hit double figures.

The right decisions could mean the Celtics lift another banner into the rafters in the next couple of seasons.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

yodurk said:


> I missed this comment earlier...there's no way I'm buying this. As long as you don't let all 3 of them score 25-30 points apiece (not happening), you have a good chance of beating them. You don't have to "shut them down", just play them tough and don't let the supporting guys go off on you. Shouldn't be too hard considering THIS is the supporting cast right now:
> 
> Tony Allen
> Glen Davis
> ...


They traded Gomes and waived Allan Ray...


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

HKF said:


> Well it doesn't really work like that The Krakken, but I understand how you're thinking. I think it matters more if the Bulls and Celtics play close games. In the 4th quarter, the Bulls have two go-to players (Gordon and Deng) and the Celtics will have two as well (KG is not a go-to player). However, if it were me, given their track records I'd rather have Pierce and Allen in crunch time, more notably because of Pierce's penchant for getting to the line.


KG hit two game winners last season...


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

bullybullz said:


> You know signing Joe Smith just made it that much smarter when it comes to the Bulls because now Smith can guard KG (who knows his weaknesses and strengths after all those practices with and against each other). I can't wait to see this match-up in the near future. If for some reason it isn't working, we could always put the muscular 4 time DPOY Ben Wallace on KG.:biggrin: :biggrin:


I am not sure if we can slow down KG, but we can definitely throw him a few different looks with Smith, Big Ben, TyTy, and Noah.

I do like the versatility we have.


----------



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

JeremyB0001 said:


> Everyone always says this but I think it's a flawed argument. Most good teams are built with superstars because that's the easy way to build a successful team. However, a team like the Bulls are already a 49 win team without a superstar. In order to actually support your argument you can't just say that teams with superstars always win titles because if 85% of the teams in the playoffs each season have a superstar then obviously most teams that win titles are going to have a superstar.


13 teams don't have MVP-calibre players in the playoffs every year. The number of teams with top five players is, by necissity, at most five.



JeremyB0001 said:


> Take a look at the teams that won as many games as the Bulls last season: Dallas (Dirk), Houston (Yao and TMac), San An (Duncan), Phoenix (Nash), and Cleveland (Bron). Now I've just made a case that it's highly unlikely (2 in 7 chance) that you'll win 49 games without a superstar but two teams did it last year and will do it again next year.


It's not a matter or winning 49 games, it's winning a title. Fifteen of the last 16 NBA title winners featured one of four players, the only time one of those four players wasn't the best player on his team was the 2006 Heat, where Dwyane Wade was more important than Shaq, but that bodes no better for Chicago's hopes.



JeremyB0001 said:


> I find your optimistic view of available free agent talent and the development of their young players to be a little bit insane.


I mean, yeah, what chance do the Celtics have of landing all star talent like Francisco Elson or Fabricio Oberto? I mean, how are the Celtics supposed to find a C/PF capable of averaging 5 p/g and 5 r/g? I mean, truly, that's nearly impossible. There are what, no more than six or seven guys capable of putting up that kind of performance? And are you of the opinion that Duhon's an all-star level talent? He's a roleplayer that hits open shots and defends. Having watched Pruitt for three years now I can tell you that I'm fairly sure that he can handle the task of walking the ball up court and handing it to Pierce. 



JeremyB0001 said:


> There's nothing wrong with Pruitt and Davis but these guys are late first rounders so the odds aren't in favor of them becoming much better than decent sixth or seventh men. What makes you think they'll pan out so much more than the Celtics other late first round picks, most of whom had much higher upside (Green, Perkins, etc.)


I'm sorry, where did I say that they'd be anything more than roleplayers? Frankly Pruitt will probably end up being better than West, and it's not because I think Pruitt's an all-star.



JeremyB0001 said:


> You can ride your starters harder in the playoffs but the criticism isn't that Boston doesn't have a good 9th man, it's that they don't have any good players after the big three. You can't just hide your 4-8 players in a playoff series.


You keep making this assertion with zero evidence. The Spurs do a great job of "hiding" the fact that the rest of their roster is filled with roleplayers. The Heat managed to "hide" the fact that their third best player was Antoine ****ing Walker. The Lakers managed to "hide" the fact that their starting 4 was Samaki ****ing Walker. When you have the talent 1-3, it just isn't that hard to hide the rest of the roster, something that the Jordan/Pippen Bulls are great evidence of. Christ, look at the 94 Rockets, they managed to "hide" the fact that their second best player was Vernon Maxwell.



JeremyB0001 said:


> The East might be "wide open" but we seem to agree that Boston is about a 50 win team next season and that means they probably won't even finish first in the division. The Bulls, Cavs, Pistons, and maybe even Raptors could all be better than them. The Celtics would have very low odds of beating Phoenix, Dallas, or San An in a seven game series. Duncan is 31, about the same age as Boston's big three, so the Celtics will be aging right along with him. You have to be a 60 win team to have a good shot at a title and I think it's pretty clear Boston doesn't fit that bill.


The statements by Ainge and Wyc Grousbeck (at the press conference) seem to indicate that they understand that they need more vet roleplayers, and it might take them till next offseason to have as many as they'll need to be serious contenders. While it's true that Garnett's as old as Duncan, Garnett's only injuries have been of the "Oh my god we have to tank!!!" variety, while Duncan's have been foot problems. Odds are that he'll slow down more quickly, and they're awfully thin after Timmeh.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

souleater said:


> guess what,in the press conference right now they asked kg about the east and the only team he did not mentioned as contenders,guess which was,yes,us:azdaja: :azdaja: :azdaja: :azdaja:


Yeah, I couldn't believe it also. KG still must hate Joe Smith...


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

JA Adande (LA Times Columnist) interview on ESPN Motion about how the KG trade affects Kobe...

Not one way or another because when KG to LA talks were rampant, you didn't hear Kobe say anything. He thinks that Kobe realizes no matter who they bring in (gotta give up pieces to get a star), you wouldn't significantly improve your chances of winning. 

Doesn't think anthing at the moment would appease Kobe.

Hasn't backed off the offer. He hasn't commented on the Lakers. 

He thinks he is stuck in LA for a year before the Lakers would move him. An offer needs to appease the Lakers too.

JO rumors are quiet.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

bullybullz said:


> Yeah, I couldn't believe it also. KG still must hate Joe Smith...


I'm fine with KG not mentioning us as contenders. The Bulls haven't earned it yet. It will take an ECF Birth to be mentioned along those lines. I think the teams he mentioned have all reached/won the finals (CLE, DET, MIA). We're haven't earned it like they have.

Hopefully his soul will be eaten by TyTy


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

theanimal23 said:


> KG mentioned in his press conference that he talked to Antoine Walker and Gary Payton about the city of Boston before being traded. I'm sure within the two months (Draft Day to Today), that Mitch Kupchak and Kevin McHale talked. As Bucher once said, not even KG coming to LA would keep Kobe in Hollywood. The two have had to talked. Now, I definitely think the Boston offer is immensely better than the Lakers offer. But, I'm sure the Lakers offer wasn't rejected immediately and KG gave it some thought. After all, no trade would happen without him signing an extension with Boston. The Boston deal became easier to accept after Allen's arrival. Now, I'm not sure if KG preferred Kobe and LA to Boston with Pierce and Allen. I sure as hell would prefer Boston if my goal is to win a ring.
> 
> But its just some thoughts. Nothing may very well happen as the Lakers will never get an equal value in terms of profit/revenue, the more important thing. Basketball wise, they need to rebuild regardless. They failed to put around the right team next to Kobe. Odom isn't great, and Bynum may take a long time to (if he) develop. JO is not going to save that franchise.
> 
> Which reminds me, Bullybullz, this is one of those cases where a team needs to rebuild and forget about making the playoffs. They have nothing that will get them past the 2nd round if they can somehow win a 1st round series.


Regarding the Lakers and them being in the West, yes you are right.


----------



## mgolding (Jul 20, 2002)

It blows me away how many people have such a low opinion of the celtics prospects in the east. KG isnt just good, he's a absolute freakin superstar, top 20 player of all time kind of guy. He almost got to the finals with Sam Cassel and Spreewel as his best support in the Western Conference. Their depth is at the moment pitiful, but the Laker team that won three championships in a row werent exactly loaded across the board. If they use their full mid levels wisely and stay relatively healthy over the next two seasons they could contend for a title in 2009 and contend in the east this season.


----------



## BullsAttitude (Jun 11, 2002)

ehmunro said:


> You keep making this assertion with zero evidence. The Spurs do a great job of "hiding" the fact that the rest of their roster is filled with roleplayers. The Heat managed to "hide" the fact that their third best player was Antoine ****ing Walker. The Lakers managed to "hide" the fact that their starting 4 was Samaki ****ing Walker. When you have the talent 1-3, it just isn't that hard to hide the rest of the roster, something that the Jordan/Pippen Bulls are great evidence of. Christ, look at the 94 Rockets, they managed to "hide" the fact that their second best player was Vernon Maxwell.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

bullybullz said:


> You have some serious issues. If he is such an ***, why doesn't he demand a trade like Kobe??? He has been loyal to the T-Wolves but the T-Wolves have made one bad move after another, the Michael Olowakandi signing, the Hudson contract, trade for Marko Jaric just to name a few, oh and don't forget the Joe Smith contract scandal which robbed the Wolves from numerous first round picks. You gonna blame all this on KG?? WTF


Just to add, was Malik Sealy's death his fault too?? OK, enough ranting. This video, made me appreciate KG even more than it already is. He is a person I would go to war with.

Part 1:

http://broadband.nba.com/cc/playa.p...ories_garnett_pt1.asx&video=blank&nbasite=nba

Part 2:

http://broadband.nba.com/cc/playa.p...ories_garnett_pt2.asx&video=blank&nbasite=nba


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

ehmunro said:


> 13 teams don't have MVP-calibre players in the playoffs every year. The number of teams with top five players is, by necissity, at most five.


This is extremely arbitrary. So teams with the sixth best player don't win titles but teams with the fifth best player do? And at that point how are we deciding who ranks where?



ehmunro said:


> It's not a matter or winning 49 games, it's winning a title. Fifteen of the last 16 NBA title winners featured one of four players, the only time one of those four players wasn't the best player on his team was the 2006 Heat, where Dwyane Wade was more important than Shaq, but that bodes no better for Chicago's hopes.


Ok, but those teams still had among the best regular season win totals. If the argument is just that teams with superstars are more likely to be successful that's obviously not a contentious argument. If the argument is that a 60 win team with a superstar can win a championship while it's much harder for a 60 win team without a superstar to win a championship then evidence you're pointing to doesn't support that point. 



ehmunro said:


> I mean, yeah, what chance do the Celtics have of landing all star talent like Francisco Elson or Fabricio Oberto? I mean, how are the Celtics supposed to find a C/PF capable of averaging 5 p/g and 5 r/g? I mean, truly, that's nearly impossible. There are what, no more than six or seven guys capable of putting up that kind of performance? And are you of the opinion that Duhon's an all-star level talent? He's a roleplayer that hits open shots and defends. Having watched Pruitt for three years now I can tell you that I'm fairly sure that he can handle the task of walking the ball up court and handing it to Pierce.


It's a lot easier to win without a great supporting cast when you play arguably the best defense in the league. I don't see the Celtics getting there anytime soon. Make jokes about Elson and Oberto all you want but Bowen was good enough to play for Team USA, Finley is a former All-Star, and Barry posted a 16+ PER last season. I'm not sure why you're bringing up Duhon when he's the Bull's 7th or 8th man and I'm talking about the Celtics _starters_ after their big three. 



ehmunro said:


> I'm sorry, where did I say that they'd be anything more than roleplayers? Frankly Pruitt will probably end up being better than West, and it's not because I think Pruitt's an all-star.


I don't see guys with the upside of a solid 7th or 8th guy taking a team to the next level as sophomores.



ehmunro said:


> You keep making this assertion with zero evidence. The Spurs do a great job of "hiding" the fact that the rest of their roster is filled with roleplayers. The Heat managed to "hide" the fact that their third best player was Antoine ****ing Walker. The Lakers managed to "hide" the fact that their starting 4 was Samaki ****ing Walker. When you have the talent 1-3, it just isn't that hard to hide the rest of the roster, something that the Jordan/Pippen Bulls are great evidence of. Christ, look at the 94 Rockets, they managed to "hide" the fact that their second best player was Vernon Maxwell.


Again, the key there is pretty much defense. I view the Heat as a bigger fluke than the non-superstar champions. They suddenly started playing stifling defense out of nowhere and combined with a hot streak and a lot of favorable whistles ran that to a championship. They didn't make a ton of noise in the two seasons sandwiching their title. The Bulls were elite defensive teams and generally had five players with PER's above or very near 15, not 3. The Rockets also had five (Drexler, Hakeem, Cassel, Smith, and Thorpe) in their second title and played top five defense in their first title. The Laker teams were generally very good defensively and more importantly had a guy posting a PER of 30 for them every season which won't happen for Boston.



ehmunro said:


> The statements by Ainge and Wyc Grousbeck (at the press conference) seem to indicate that they understand that they need more vet roleplayers, and it might take them till next offseason to have as many as they'll need to be serious contenders. While it's true that Garnett's as old as Duncan, Garnett's only injuries have been of the "Oh my god we have to tank!!!" variety, while Duncan's have been foot problems. Odds are that he'll slow down more quickly, and they're awfully thin after Timmeh.


That's pretty speculative. There's no good reason to believe that Duncan is going to fall of dramatically next season or soon thereafter or to believe that KG will be a force when he's 34 or 35, few players are.


----------



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

BullsAttitude said:


> The Heat's 3rd best player would have been Mourning for his defensive presence in the middle or even Udonis Haslem. For the Rocket's, I would have taken Sam Cassell (a rookie that season), Robert Horry, Kenny Smith or Otis Thorpe as the Rocket's 2nd best player instead of Vernon Maxwell. For the Lakers of the 00-02, they didn't face any real challenge out of the East (plus they had Derek Fisher, Ron Harper, Robert Horry and Horace Grant to name a few); something this Boston team would have to face if it would make it to the Finals.


In other words, after their big 2, both the Kobe/Shaq Lakers and the Wade/Shaq heat were full of mediocre vet roleplayers, and not the vaunted talent that Jeremy was claiming that you need to win a title.



BullsAttitude said:


> For the Bulls of the 91-93, it was Jordan, Pippen, and Grant. Then you had Bill Cartwright (former 20 pt scorer for the Knicks) at Center, a very underrated defensive player for his time. You had John Paxson being able to hit the open shot, something most players can't do these days. Then on the bench was B.J. Armstrong, Craig Hodges, Cliff Levingston and Scott Williams (2 players that brought great hustle and energy). From 96-98, after Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman, you had Toni Kukoc, which is better than any player Boston has after there BIG 3, then you throw in Ron Harper, who was long and a former 20 pt. scorer in the league who changed his game for the team. Then off the bench was Steve Kerr, who took the place as the spot up shooter, Bill Wennington and Randy Brown. Notice I didn't even mention Luc Longley.


In other words, after Jordan & Pippen, the Bulls were a collection of roleplayers, and not the borderline all stars that teams are supposed to need 4-8 if they have any hopes of winning a title. And Luc Longley was still the starting center. 



BullsAttitude said:


> The main clog was Phil Jackson who was a great coach at getting the best out of players, plus being able to work with all the different egos, something I will get to later. This Bulls team had more depth than you realize, did you forget they went 55-27 the year after Jordan retired, took the eventual Eastern Conf. Champion to 7 games?


Not really relevant to the claim that teams need to be packed to the gills with good players to win a title, though, is it? And that squad is yet _more_ proof of what I said at the outset. That team was build around a top 50 all-time player and a bunch of roleplayers.



BullsAttitude said:


> Egos, something that hasn't been discussed yet with these 3 Superstar players being together. Each has been the main focal point of their team so far for the majority of their career, who is going to give up shots, give up points, give up the ball sometimes? It's not easy to do and there is no guarentee Doc Rivers can do a good job it.


The biggest knock against Garnett, for his career has been that he defers to others too much. Garnett & Ray Allen have been friends since since high school. Pierce spent hours trying to convince Garnett to come to Boston, and never had any troubles working with Antoine ****ing Walker, I think he'll manage to get along with Garnett & Allen.



BullsAttitude said:


> Boston will be better this year but I still see Chicago, Toronto, Detroit, Miami (if healthy) and Cleveland (if they sign Varejo and Pavilic back) being able to beat Boston in a playoff series.


Toronto couldn't even beat New Jersey last year, I'd hold off on booking them reservations for the second round yet. They're one all-star surrounded by a collection of roleplayers of varying ability. Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland and Miami are the competition. 



BullsAttitude said:


> It's like your thinking Luol Deng, Ben Gordon, Tyrus Thomas and Thabo S. won't be improving at all. Especially Deng who is getting better and gaining more confidence each year. Last year would have been his Sr. year at Duke, not to mention the wrist injury which hindered his progress before the '05-'06 season. He was the 2nd best player coming out of High School behind Lebron James, and his playoff success will only help him this following season.


None of them are MVP-calibre players, which is the point (and why I keep saying that Paxson should stop hoarding kids and make a trade for Kobe, because he'd put the Bulls over the top).



BullsAttitude said:


> You think it will just take a point guard handing the ball to Pierce, Allen or Garnett for the Celtics to be very successful? Let's go back to the Celtics of the 80's. Larry Bird, Robert Parrish, and Kevin McHale were the Big 3 of that team. Do you think that is all Boston needed to win then? Did you forget about Dennis Johnson, Danny Ainge, Bill Walton, or Cedric Maxwell? How bout the Lakers? After Magic, Kareem, and Worthy, there was Byron Scott, Kurt Rambis, Michael Cooper and Norm Nixon to name a few.


From the start of the second generation of the salary cap, teams haven't been able to assemble the Lakers/Celtics teams of the early 80s. Even trying to cite the Celtics/Lakers teams that dominated the 80s, what you end up with is the conclusion that the team with the most hall-of-famers wins. Which is generally how it goes anyway. Since the breakup of the Lakers/Celtics of the 80s, title winners have been built around an MVP-calibre player or two (or three) and a bunch of roleplayers. Boston needs more roleplayers, Chicago needs that MVP-calibre player to put them over the top.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

bullybullz said:


> Just to add, was Malik Sealy's death his fault too?? OK, enough ranting. This video, made me appreciate KG even more than it already is. He is a person I would go to war with.
> 
> Part 1:
> 
> ...


Anyone know why Marbury forced a trade out of Minny?


----------



## Samael (Sep 1, 2005)

theanimal23 said:


> Anyone know why Marbury forced a trade out of Minny?


His balls were freezing.


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

Is the Celtics now just 
Garnet
Allan
Pierce
and Perkins??? Is there anyone elseof note on their team?


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

bullybullz said:


> You have some serious issues. If he is such an ***, why doesn't he demand a trade like Kobe???


In case you missed it he did just not in a direct specific way that would have made it easier to comprehend for people like you



> He has been loyal to the T-Wolves but the T-Wolves have made one bad move after another, the Michael Olowakandi signing, the Hudson contract, trade for Marko Jaric just to name a few, oh and don't forget the Joe Smith contract scandal which robbed the Wolves from numerous first round picks. You gonna blame all this on KG?? WTF


No issues here . Just calling it how I see it and refusal to give due just for the sake of being a name Fk'r 

I will freely concede he has had a numbnut owner and management team in Minnesota 

But don't play the loyalty card with your holier than thou horseshyte when he has in his not too sublime way being working against the organisation , and where , because of who and what he is ( and what he was only too willingly to ride with the upside of that ) never gave that organisation a sporting chance 

He , and that organisation , were prisoners to each other - but no one was ( or is ) honest enough to call a spade a bloody shovel 

Its far more convienient for him and his BS persona and the people that worship the supastaw to ride his nutsack whilst riding the bandwagon of blame on the front office manned by the keystone cops

Past the 1st round once in 11 years. End of story

Enjoy Boston and a decline that befell Keem, Glyde and Chuck...and oh yeah Matt Baloney . That's this Boston team 


Nothing new to see here. History does repeat


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

mgolding said:


> Jordan, Pippen and Rodman vs Allen, Pierce and Garnett
> I'd give it to the Bulls trio quite clearly but with the east as it is the Boston Trio could be near to as dominant. Garnett will be absolutely amazing in the east. No more 4 games against Duncan, Stoudamire, Brand, Dirk, Boozer and Gasol. The only question that remains is the other 7 or so guys who need to play some minutes.
> 
> Assuming Tony Allen is healthy they're sitting ok on their wings. They've got gaping holes are at centre and point guard.
> ...


I am willing to take bets that they won't come within Pee Wee Herman's pecker of sniffing the finals 

Detroit, Bulls, Jersey, Toronto....all better. Maybe Cleveland too


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> In case you missed it he did just not in a direct specific way that would have *made it easier to comprehend for people like you*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hey edit, if you actually watched the press conference, the reason KG got traded was because the owner Glen Taylor and KG had disagreement's with the direction the franchise was taking. It was time to part ways. 

edit I will give you this: 

*"I'm confident the (Minnesota) fans know that this is something we needed to do to get better in the long run," Timberwolves owner Glen Taylor said.*

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_y...YcB?slug=ap-celtics-garnett&prov=ap&type=lgns

That's what the owner said, OK?? Owner?? U know what it means??

edit


----------



## BullsAttitude (Jun 11, 2002)

ehmunro said:


> In other words, after their big 2, both the Kobe/Shaq Lakers and the Wade/Shaq heat were full of mediocre vet roleplayers, and not the vaunted talent that Jeremy was claiming that you need to win a title.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Those Laker and Heat teams had quality vets that had bit time playoff and CHAMPIONSHIP experience, something NONE of the current Celtics have (besides Scalabrine), that goes a long way in winning a title. 

As for Luol Deng not being MVP-caliber player, was Steve Nash a MVP-caliber player after the 98-99 season or the 99-00 season? No, he wasn't but he worked his way there!

Your discounting the talent that Chicago had in the early 90's, the team that won the 1st title in '91 learned from 2 consective losses to the eventual NBA champion. That team was pretty much the same give a few players, but they learned in the playoffs. The 2nd 3peat teams were pretty much veterans wanting to win a title, they came in with playoff experience and gained some the season without Michael and the half season with him. By the time the 95'-96' season rolled around, they all knew there roles and played like the team they knew they could be.

It's not just ROLE players you need, you need Veteran Role players with EXPERIENCE. Now, if Boston can get a PJ Brown, Chris Webber, or any other experienced vet to sign, then I can see them possibly getting to the Finals. With the current group though, not going to happen plus they don't have the seasons to waste waiting for the current group to learn how to win in the Playoffs. 

PS, don't discount Toronto, they got the taste of playoffs last year and gained experience. With Bosh and TJ Ford, plus role players with experience, they will be dangerous.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

BullsAttitude said:


> Those Laker and Heat teams had quality vets that had bit time playoff and CHAMPIONSHIP experience, something NONE of the current Celtics have (besides Scalabrine), that goes a long way in winning a title.
> 
> As for Luol Deng not being MVP-caliber player, was Steve Nash a MVP-caliber player after the 98-99 season or the 99-00 season? No, he wasn't but he worked his way there!
> 
> ...


Add to that, all those teams he mentioned had one major thing in common. They could lock you down defensively. No team with Ray Allen and Paul Pierce will ever be accused of that. Moreover, BECAUSE of their defensive deficiencies, I estimate that they will need to score about 103ppg to beat the BEST teams in the east. Cause they sure ain't gonna stop them. I just don't see where that other 33ppg is going to come from (If you give ganett, pierce and Allen about 70ppg between them--which isn't all that safe a bet).


----------



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

BullsAttitude said:


> Those Laker and Heat teams had quality vets that had bit time playoff and CHAMPIONSHIP experience, something NONE of the current Celtics have (besides Scalabrine), that goes a long way in winning a title.


The didn't have "quality vets" if by quality you mean good. They had vets. And that's what you need to win a title. Guess what the Bulls are short on as well? And they not only lack the vets, they lack the MVP-calibre player to put them over the top. It's a whole lot easier to find vets than MVP-calibre players. Boston is planning on spending another $4-$9 million this year, so they'll be adding at least two for the upcoming season, with their target being 2009 (after adding another couple of vets next offseason). Really, all you need is vets that know their job, that's it. Scrubs like Elson & Oberto are fine if you have the talent at the top of the rotation. Boston does.



BullsAttitude said:


> Your discounting the talent that Chicago had in the early 90's, the team that won the 1st title in '91 learned from 2 consective losses to the eventual NBA champion. That team was pretty much the same give a few players, but they learned in the playoffs. The 2nd 3peat teams were pretty much veterans wanting to win a title, they came in with playoff experience and gained some the season without Michael and the half season with him. By the time the 95'-96' season rolled around, they all knew there roles and played like the team they knew they could be.


In other words, after Jordan and Pippen the Bulls just had a lot of vet roleplayers, and not the team of all stars that Boston is supposed to theoretically need to compete.



BullsAttitude said:


> It's not just ROLE players you need, you need Veteran Role players with EXPERIENCE. Now, if Boston can get a PJ Brown, Chris Webber, or any other experienced vet to sign, then I can see them possibly getting to the Finals.


By definition vets have experience. If they were inexperienced they wouldn't be vets. If you meant "playoff experience" I'll point out the fact that Paul Pierce made the ECF back when the conference was tougher surrounded by vet roleplayers with little playoff experience. Vets that know how to do their jobs is enough if you have enough talent. Boston has enough talent 1-3. They have a solid vet roleplayer in B-Cup Scalabrine. Now they need some more, and from the statements that the owners made yesterday, they're planning on adding more vet depth (and it won't be hard to find vets looking for the chance to play on a title winner).



BullsAttitude said:


> PS, don't discount Toronto, they got the taste of playoffs last year and gained experience. With Bosh and TJ Ford, plus role players with experience, they will be dangerous.


I'm not particularly worried about them. They return the same team, only Bosh isn't yet as good as Garnett, they're going to struggle dealing with Pierce and Allen on the wings, and as things stand, even if Rondo's the starting 1, TJ does very little against him (Rondo can be posted up by bigger guards, but he's bigger and quicker that TJ and continuously disrupts Ford's dribble). Hopefully, however, Bell's the starting PG.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Wow... looks like all the FAs are flopping all over each other to get to Boston. I heard the owner for the Celtics on ESPN radio last night. When the topic of luxury tax came up he said “we’ll do what we have to do.” That’s a refreshing attitude from a Bulls fan’s perspective. Win now baby!

http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/47416/20070801/free_agents_now_calling_boston/

Brevin Knight, Eddie House, Deke.

Yah, that would clear up a lot of their problems. They just need Deke for the playoffs basically.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Wow... looks like all the FAs are flopping all over each other to get to Boston. I heard the owner for the Celtics on ESPN radio last night. When the topic of luxury tax came up he said “we’ll do what we have to do.” That’s a refreshing attitude from a Bulls fan’s perspective. Win
> 
> http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/47416/20070801/free_agents_now_calling_boston/
> 
> ...



I agree. I wish Reinsdorf was willing to pay the damn tax. Do what it takes to build this team into a winner. We are on track, but if there are moves that could potentially put us over the hump that are backed out for these reasons, I'm going to hate it.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Wow... looks like all the FAs are flopping all over each other to get to Boston. I heard the owner for the Celtics on ESPN radio last night. When the topic of luxury tax came up he said “we’ll do what we have to do.” That’s a refreshing attitude from a Bulls fan’s perspective. Win now baby!
> 
> http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/47416/20070801/free_agents_now_calling_boston/
> 
> ...


Three years ago you couldn't understand why Pax wasn't as agressive as Isaiah Thomas. Now you're upset that Pax isn't following the Ainge plan!?!?!?

I think some of us need to work on our list of role models.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> When the topic of luxury tax came up he said “we’ll do what we have to do.” That’s a refreshing attitude from a Bulls fan’s perspective.


----------



## BullsAttitude (Jun 11, 2002)

ehmunro said:


> The didn't have "quality vets" if by quality you mean good. They had vets. And that's what you need to win a title. Guess what the Bulls are short on as well? And they not only lack the vets, they lack the MVP-calibre player to put them over the top. It's a whole lot easier to find vets than MVP-calibre players. Boston is planning on spending another $4-$9 million this year, so they'll be adding at least two for the upcoming season, with their target being 2009 (after adding another couple of vets next offseason). Really, all you need is vets that know their job, that's it. Scrubs like Elson & Oberto are fine if you have the talent at the top of the rotation. Boston does.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What is exactly is your definition of "quality" vets? A "quality" vet to me is someone like Alonzo Mourning, a former star of the Heat, a great defensive player willing to sacifice some areas for the sake of the team. If needed to score, he could still do it, but it wasn't the team's main focus.

So, pretty much the Lakers and Heat had scrubs after Shaq/Kobe and Shaq/Wade? That's it?

Man, if you want to borrow some old tapes of the Bulls, you can, I have quite a few. How bout you go back and watch the '91 Finals and watch how the team played. How the Bulls hounded the Lakers on defense, I couldn't appreciate it then but I can now. 

Where was the response to Nash not being an MVP-caliber player after his 3rd season in the league or his 4th? I didn't see that. Why, cause Deng can become a MVP-caliber player down the road, just like Pippen was in the 93-94 or 94-95 season. Deng has all the potential to be that type of player.

Toronto is more than Chris Bosh and TJ Ford. You are forgetting about Anthony Parker, Jorge Garbosa, Jose Calderon, Rasho Nesterovic, and they added Jason Kapono. Not to mention they have a better GM in Bryan Colango. That is a deeper team than the Celtics with an MVP-caliber type player in Bosh, with playoff experience. 

Before the playoffs started, Toronto fans truly believed they were going to the ECF's and maybe the Finals. I argued with a fan that you need the experience and good defense to go deep into the playoffs, he argued that they had Bosh who can go to the FT line, that FT can win you games. Well, what happened? They lost to NJ cause of...........no experience. Notice towards the end of that series, it started getting a little tight for NJ? If Toronto pulls off that last play in Game 6, it might have been a different story.

You truly believe the Eastern Conference was tougher in 2002? Hold on........:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:.....OK, I'm back. 

What are you smoking to believe that? The Conference as a joke then, it was a joke from 2001 to 2003, the Nets represented the East in 2002 and 2003 and won a combined total of 2 games in the Finals, and both were against the Spurs. They got killed by the Lakers, the same Lakers team that had the so called scrub vets you are talking about.

Look, Boston is going to be better, no doubt, Boston is going to be one of the top teams in the East, no doubt, but I'm not going to put them right into the ECFs just because of them obtaining Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen. Yes, they made add vets, but will those vets have the "Playoff" experience needed to help the team. Will those vets or the players they have learn to play team defense?

Example: The Bulls finally made the playoffs in 2005 with all that young talent, who was the glue, the main piece that helped them? Can you answer this? 

It was Antonio Davis, the same Antonio Davis that had played in the '94,'95,'98,&'99 ECFs and played in the 2000 Finals. He was the "quality" veteran that helped lead the team on the floor, sacrificed when needed, and did all the little things that helps a team win. Notice after the Bulls traded Antonio Davis to the Knicks with Eddy Curry that they had a tough start to the '05-'06 season. They lacked leadership and the toughness that he brought. They did make the playoffs but didn't clinch it until a week to go in the season.

Also, like Krakken said, all the teams I mentioned played a tough defense, a very tough team defense. Something that this WHOLE Boston team will have to learn if they really want to go far. You want to see hard aggressive all over the place defense, go back and watch the '91 Finals. You'll see what I'm talking about.

Another thing, the Celtics coach is Doc Rivers, not Pat Riley, Phil Jackson, Gregg Popavich, Larry Brown, Rudy Tomjonvich, or Chuck Daley. Those coaches have won the last 21 titles and each had been at least into the 2nd rd of the playoffs before winning it all. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Rivers the Magic's coach when the Magic blew the 3-1 lead over the Pistons in the playoffs, and they had a MVP-caliber player in T-Mac?


----------



## BullsAttitude (Jun 11, 2002)

Just wanted to post this, but 3 out of 5 ESPN analysts pick Chicago to represent the East, even one says the same thing I've been saying about Luol Deng. And Ric Bucher picks who to represent the East, his darkhorse Toronto. Marc Stein is the only one who thinks that Boston will come out of the East.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?page=Roundup-EastPower


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Wynn said:


> Three years ago you couldn't understand why Pax wasn't as agressive as Isaiah Thomas. Now you're upset that Pax isn't following the Ainge plan!?!?!?
> 
> I think some of us need to work on our list of role models.


I too am disturbed that the Bull cannot attract FA's of the stature of Eddie House, Brevin Knight and Dikembe Mutumbo. 

Maybe we can fly Mutumbo to Chicago and do the old masoct meet n greet thing?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jbulls said:


> I too am disturbed that the Bull cannot attract FA's of the stature of Eddie House, Brevin Knight and Dikembe Mutumbo.


No concern here. We don't need players like Deke (well, he'd be a nice backup until noah is ready to be good, espeiclly if there are any "win now" dreams).

We need players like Garnett. Players like Paul Pierce.

The argument was, well, the Celtics have those big 3, but they lack depth.

House, Knight, Deke and their solid young guards / forwards (allen, rondo, sowe) would clear that issue up pretty well.

The Bulls don’t need depth. We need some top 25 in the NBA talent.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> No concern here. We don't need players like Deke (well, he'd be a nice backup until noah is ready to be good, espeiclly if there are any "win now" dreams).
> 
> We need players like Garnett. Players like Paul Pierce.
> 
> ...


Fair enough. I do think Paxson attempted to do that with Ben Wallace, who was probably a top 25 NBA talent (albiet a unique one) as recently as his last year as a Piston. Obviously those days are gone. The same will probably be true with Allen / Pierce / Garnett in a couple years. Here's hoping one of the Gordon / Deng / Thomas group develops into that kind of a player.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

ehmunro said:


> I'm not particularly worried about them. They return the same team, only Bosh isn't yet as good as Garnett, they're going to struggle dealing with Pierce and Allen on the wings, and as things stand, even if Rondo's the starting 1, TJ does very little against him (Rondo can be posted up by bigger guards, but he's bigger and quicker that TJ and continuously disrupts Ford's dribble). Hopefully, however, Bell's the starting PG.


I really think people place too much emphasis on transactions as a means of improvement. Guys like Tyrus and Bargnani will probably improve their team more by stepping on their games than all but a handful of the best players to switch teams this offseason (Allen, Garnett, Lewis, etc.).



kukoc4ever said:


> Wow... looks like all the FAs are flopping all over each other to get to Boston. I heard the owner for the Celtics on ESPN radio last night. When the topic of luxury tax came up he said “we’ll do what we have to do.” That’s a refreshing attitude from a Bulls fan’s perspective. Win now baby!
> 
> http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/47416/20070801/free_agents_now_calling_boston/
> 
> ...


Heh. They can have their pick of the litter and I don't think it will matter much considering that all the best free agents have already signed. Those players aren't awful but they're guys you want as your 8th or 9th players, not major pieces.


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

The forgotten man in all of this is Perkins. He could really excel with Boston this year. 


```
MPG     FG      RPG     APG     BPG     TO      F       PPG
05-06 	BOS 	19.6 	0.515 	5.9 	1.0 	1.5 	1.57 	2.90 	5.2
06-07 	BOS 	21.9 	0.491 	5.2 	1.3 	1.3 	1.57 	3.00 	4.5
```
If he can stay healthy and on the court for 30 minutes a game it would be a real plus for Boston
His 23 and surely his best years are ahead of him.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

jbulls said:


> Fair enough. I do think Paxson attempted to do that with Ben Wallace, who was probably a top 25 NBA talent (albiet a unique one) as recently as his last year as a Piston. Obviously those days are gone. The same will probably be true with Allen / Pierce / Garnett in a couple years. Here's hoping one of the Gordon / Deng / Thomas group develops into that kind of a player.


Yeah, I always thought that before Ben left Detroit, if you asked a Detroit fan who the best player is/face of the franchise, more likely than not, they will say Big Ben.


----------



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

BullsAttitude said:


> What is exactly is your definition of "quality" vets? A "quality" vet to me is someone like Alonzo Mourning, a former star of the Heat, a great defensive player willing to sacifice some areas for the sake of the team. If needed to score, he could still do it, but it wasn't the team's main focus.


I'm not the one arguing that only teams with "quality vets" win. That would be the Bulls fans who think that their lack of "quality vets" make them the conference favourites (even though the Pistons are still the team to beat in the East). I'm the one that's consistently pointed out that all you need from your vets is guys that know their job, because if you have quality at the top, guys like Elson, Oberto, Udrih, Antoine Walker, Samaki Walker, and Luc Longley are enough to fill out a roster. Alonzo Mourning may be a former Heat star, but he sure as hell wasn't a star in 2006. He was nothing more than a guy that knew his job. Just like the rest of the vets on that roster. Wade and Shaq did the heavy lifting, the rest of them were nothing more than the spotters.



BullsAttitude said:


> Man, if you want to borrow some old tapes of the Bulls, you can, I have quite a few. How bout you go back and watch the '91 Finals and watch how the team played. How the Bulls hounded the Lakers on defense, I couldn't appreciate it then but I can now.


I appreciated it then. But defense doesn't take "stars". The 2002 Celtics were one of the best defensive squads in the NBA that year and Paul Pierce and Antoine Walker were the starting forwards. Not exactly defensive aces those guys. It just takes guys that know the job and a coaching staff to work with them (which is Boston's real weakness now, but they want Rivers in town for one more year because 2009 is their target year).



BullsAttitude said:


> Where was the response to Nash not being an MVP-caliber player after his 3rd season in the league or his 4th? I didn't see that. Why, cause Deng can become a MVP-caliber player down the road, just like Pippen was in the 93-94 or 94-95 season. Deng has all the potential to be that type of player.


Deng turning into an MVP-calibre player at the age of 30 won't help you next year, will it? It doesn't help Phoenix because despite the MVP awards Nash hasn't been one of the five best in the NBA during that run. NBA basketball isn't terribly democratic. The teams with the most talent at the top of their rotations win. A quick look at the last 25 NBA title winners makes that pretty clear. You can find exactly one that didn't have that sort of player on their roster. Dance as much as you like, as long as you like, you still have to explain how it is that teams built around "depth" have only been able to defeat teams built around power once in the last quarter century.



BullsAttitude said:


> Toronto is more than Chris Bosh and TJ Ford. You are forgetting about Anthony Parker, Jorge Garbosa, Jose Calderon, Rasho Nesterovic, and they added Jason Kapono. Not to mention they have a better GM in Bryan Colango. That is a deeper team than the Celtics with an MVP-caliber type player in Bosh, with playoff experience.


That's a team of roleplayers of varying quality and _a_ possible future MVP candidate. They'll certainly go to the postseason as they're well built, but until they come up with a similar talent (to Bosh) they're going to struggle in the playoffs. But, if Pierce could lead a team of roleplayers to the ECF, Bosh should be able to eventually do it too.



BullsAttitude said:


> Before the playoffs started, Toronto fans truly believed they were going to the ECF's and maybe the Finals. I argued with a fan that you need the experience and good defense to go deep into the playoffs, he argued that they had Bosh who can go to the FT line, that FT can win you games. Well, what happened? They lost to NJ cause of...........no experience.


Yeah, sure, it had nothing to do with the fact that New Jersey had multiple All Stars and Toronto just the one. It was all due to the postseason experience of guys like Mikki Moore, Bostjan Nachbar, Antoine Wright, Marcus Williams and Josh Boone. The "experience" those guys brought to the table was simply too much to be overcome.



BullsAttitude said:


> You truly believe the Eastern Conference was tougher in 2002? ...
> 
> What are you smoking to believe that? The Conference as a joke then, it was a joke from 2001 to 2003, the Nets represented the East in 2002 and 2003 and won a combined total of 2 games in the Finals, and both were against the Spurs. They got killed by the Lakers, the same Lakers team that had the so called scrub vets you are talking about.


Yeah, because with 41 wins, the New Jersey Nets and Washington Wizards would have been what, a third or fourth seed in 2002? I understand, most of you Bulls fans weren't watching the NBA in those days, but some of us noticed that back in 2002 you actually had to have a _winning record_ to make the EC Playoffs, something that hasn't been true the last few years. Last year _five_ EC teams had winning records, in 2002 eight did. Last year there were seven .500 teams, in 2002 there were nine. Yes, the conference was tougher then, despite the fact that New Jersey was unable to be competitive against a team with _two[/] of the top 3 players in the league one year and the best player of the last decade the next. And yeah, the fact that New Jersey couldn't beat the Shaq/Kobe Lakers or the San Antonio Timmehs totally disproves the contention that the teams with top 5 players are almost always the ones that end up winning the title. Totally disproves it. Really.



BullsAttitude said:



Look, Boston is going to be better, no doubt, Boston is going to be one of the top teams in the East, no doubt, but I'm not going to put them right into the ECFs just because of them obtaining Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen. Yes, they made add vets, but will those vets have the "Playoff" experience needed to help the team. Will those vets or the players they have learn to play team defense?

Click to expand...

The lack of playoff experience among the vets didn't seem to stop the Nets from reaching the finals in 2002. If you have the firepower at the top, and have vets that know their job and can perform it, it's generally enough. That's how teams manage to win titles despite starting Francisco Elson & Luc Longley.



BullsAttitude said:



The Bulls finally made the playoffs in 2005 with all that young talent, who was the glue, the main piece that helped them? Can you answer this? 

It was Antonio Davis, the same Antonio Davis that had played in the '94,'95,'98,&'99 ECFs and played in the 2000 Finals. He was the "quality" veteran that helped lead the team on the floor, sacrificed when needed, and did all the little things that helps a team win. Notice after the Bulls traded Antonio Davis to the Knicks with Eddy Curry that they had a tough start to the '05-'06 season. They lacked leadership and the toughness that he brought. They did make the playoffs but didn't clinch it until a week to go in the season.

Click to expand...

In other words, they had a vet roleplayer whose best days were long, long behind him, and that made the difference. Which proves the contention that your vets have to be "good NBA players", by which you Bulls fans seem to mean "any vet roleplayer except vet roleplayers that sign with Boston".



BullsAttitude said:



Also, like Krakken said, all the teams I mentioned played a tough defense, a very tough team defense. Something that this WHOLE Boston team will have to learn if they really want to go far. You want to see hard aggressive all over the place defense, go back and watch the '91 Finals. You'll see what I'm talking about.

Click to expand...

The Garnett trade actually improved the Celtics defensively at two spots (because Jefferson was/is a defensive liability). But, it will be whoever takes the team over next offseason that will get the responsibility. The team has made pretty clear that they see 2009 as the optimal year, because they need to add more vets, and can only sign a couple this offseason (one of whom was Eddie House). They want Rivers to mesh the personalities (because he's good at the interpersonal stuff, mostly), and to a lesser degree to work with his clone, Gabe Pruitt for a year. After that he'll probably make a move back to the broadcast booth to be replaced by a better coach (unless the Celtics manage to catch lightning in a bottle)._


----------



## BullsAttitude (Jun 11, 2002)

ehmunro said:


> I'm not the one arguing that only teams with "quality vets" win. That would be the Bulls fans who think that their lack of "quality vets" make them the conference favourites (even though the Pistons are still the team to beat in the East). I'm the one that's consistently pointed out that all you need from your vets is guys that know their job, because if you have quality at the top, guys like Elson, Oberto, Udrih, Antoine Walker, Samaki Walker, and Luc Longley are enough to fill out a roster. Alonzo Mourning may be a former Heat star, but he sure as hell wasn't a star in 2006. He was nothing more than a guy that knew his job. Just like the rest of the vets on that roster. Wade and Shaq did the heavy lifting, the rest of them were nothing more than the spotters.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


_

Actually, us Bulls fans have been watching the Bulls for ALONG time, notice the board and how many Fans there are on it. I've been an avid NBA fan since 1985 and a Bulls fan since 1987, so yes I was watching the NBA in the 2002 year. Sorry, yeah 50 wins got you the top seed in the East in 2002, but to come back at your talking about having a winning record to get in the playoffs, the Bulls were 30-52 in the '85-'86 season when the made the playoffs and faced Boston. Do you think the East was stronger than or in 2002? In 2002, there 3 actual decent teams in the East, New Jersey, Boston and Detroit; that was it. For your Boston team, what happened after that season, you all were a young team, why didn't you ever make it back to the ECFs, you still had Paul Pierce and Antoine Walker? It was a weak East, and it started to get a little stronger with Detroit on the rise and the new young talent eventually coming in. The East is still not stronger than the West but it is stronger now than it was in 2002.

Winning records don't mean crap, Houston was 40-42 when they made the '81 Finals. You know what, they beat the defending Champion Lakers in the 1st round.

Hey, I never said Chicago is going to win it "Next" year ( I didn't say they would win the East either, I do think we can make the ECFs though) but you know what, I don't believe any team from the East will either. Even with KG coming to the East now. I see Phoenix coming out of the West and hell, San Antonio, Houston, and Utah are more likely to win the Title than any team from the East.

Yeah, the experience that Kidd, Carter, and Jefferson had, plus whatever experience the role players had (New Jersey has been to the playoffs on a consistent basis) was able to beat the "lack of experience" from Toronto and their team. Yeah, those big 3 were able to win a title....oh wait, they didn't even make it to the ECFs!

Any old vet is not going to win you a title, a player that has been in the year 2 leagues is considered a vet, doesn't mean he is ready to play under pressure in the playoffs. You need vets with "Playoff Experience" to be successful, ones that know how the playoffs operate and what to expect from them.

You can knock San Antonio's scrub players all you want, but a lot of the players they have have been in pressure situations in Euroleagues, the Olympics and the playoffs before. San Antonio is a year-in year-out, playoff team, so they learn each year. Sorry, your Boston is not and they don't have the experience to back it up.

You can keep talking about Stars and lesser players being able to win a Title but it takes more than that to win it all. From your posts, I can see you have been watching the NBA that long and what it really takes to get to the promised land. Boston might be able to pull it off one year with the right additions but Boston has a 3 year window to win it all, if it doesn't happen then be prepared for losing again, while my team (barring injuries or something freakish) will probably still be one of, if not, the top team in the EASTERN Conf. In 3 years, the East's young teams will have improved and some of these young players like Luol Deng will be MVP-caliber by then. 

If you want to keep arguing, that's fine, but why don't you check out my post right after my last one, with the link to ESPN, or go check out SI's rankings of the East. I think you'll be surprised what some of the "Expert Analysts" are saying._


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

*I've had enough......*



ehmunro said:


> I'm not the one arguing that only teams with "quality vets" win. That would be the Bulls fans who think that their lack of "quality vets" make them the conference favourites (even though the Pistons are still the team to beat in the East).


Who says that? The pundits don't agree. No the reason bulls fans think they are the conference favorites, is because they have
a REALLY GOOD 1-2-3 scoring punch AND....
One of the top defensive teams in the league AND.....
an embarrasment of riches on the bench AND......
an embarrassment of riches in young but PLAYOFF EXPERIENCED TALENT AND.....
a team whose core has been together IN THE PLAYOFFS For 4 years now AND.....
a QUALITY VET in Ben Wallace AND.....
a 6th man who could start for half the teams in this league AND.....
a BACKUP PG who could damn near do the same AND.....
They are bigger up front than they were last year AND.....
their best players are still a year or two away from ENTERING THEIR PRIME (as opposed to boston, whose best players are a year or two from EXITING their prime), AND......
on AND.....
on.......



> I'm the one that's consistently pointed out that all you need from your vets is guys that know their job, because if you have quality at the top, guys like Elson, Oberto, Udrih, Antoine Walker, Samaki Walker, and Luc Longley are enough to fill out a roster.


And you'd be presenting simultaneously a false dichotomy AND a strawman. Look, its not EITHER a superstar or a veteran scrub. You conveniently ignore players like Horry, Bowen, Barry, etc....hey what do you know....those guys are quality vets, who are not anything REMOTELY like the scrubs you mention....and you ignore them to bolster your argument by creating hyperbole. By the way, Antoine Walker and James Posey as role players are far superior to any player on the Celtics bench. IN fact, they are MUCH better than any player on that roster outside of the big three.



> Alonzo Mourning may be a former Heat star, but he sure as hell wasn't a star in 2006. He was nothing more than a guy that knew his job. Just like the rest of the vets on that roster. Wade and Shaq did the heavy lifting, the rest of them were nothing more than the spotters.


He was also a defensive anchor on that team. Even moreso than KG will be on the Celts.



> I appreciated it then. But defense doesn't take "stars". The 2002 Celtics were one of the best defensive squads in the NBA that year and Paul Pierce and Antoine Walker were the starting forwards. Not exactly defensive aces those guys.


Based on PPG maybe, but certainly not based on getting stops in critical situations. That's what matters most in the playoffs. As for any statistic you can conjure up, there are three types of lies.........

I was there, I know what I saw.



> It just takes guys that know the job and a coaching staff to work with them (which is Boston's real weakness now, but they want Rivers in town for one more year because 2009 is their target year).


It takes a LOT more than that. It takes a commitment to wanting to be good defensively, by the players. Your oversimplified argument does a tremendous job of explaining why Pheonix--who is filled both with excellent coaching, and players who "know the job", is still one of the most pourous defensive teams in the league.



> Deng turning into an MVP-calibre player at the age of 30 won't help you next year, will it?


More hyperbole. He'll be an MVP calibre player in less than 3 years. That would make him 25. He's already surpassed Pierce, and he's better than Ray Allen as well. He's not as spectacular as those two, but ask John paxson or Scott Skiles if he would trade Luol Deng for Paul Pierce for even one season and see what kind of response you get.



> It doesn't help Phoenix because despite the MVP awards Nash hasn't been one of the five best in the NBA during that run.


Opinion and conjecture.



> NBA basketball isn't terribly democratic. The teams with the most talent at the top of their rotations win. A quick look at the last 25 NBA title winners makes that pretty clear.


Yes, but those teams also had players who were CLEARLY top 5 players in the league. THe bulls had arguably two of the top 3. THe same with BOTH iterations of the Lakers. The Spurs have the current best player in the league and one of the best PGS in the league. The Celtics, by the way were DEEPER than the Pacific, as were the showtime lakers and the pistons. THe bulls had two of the top 20 players of all time. The second time around, they had the best defensive players at *3 positions*, the leagues best 6th man on the bench, and a VERY VERY GOOD defender playing the "1". ANd above all else, they always had stellar ball handling and point play (pip was the PG of those teams). 

The celtics don't have any of that. KG is no longer a top 5 player in this league. Over who? Lebron --Who actually took his team to the finals by himself? Duncan--Get real? Dwayne Wade? Come on. Steve Nash? :lol: Kobe Bryant? Should I keep going? He's top 10, but not top 5. Paul Pierce? Please. His best days are behind him. He cant stay healthy, and I can name *at least* 10 SF's that I'd rather have--and ALL of them are on playoff teams. He's clearly not a top 5, top 10 and perhaps not even a top 20 player in this league. Then there's Ray Allen. He actually HAD help in Seattle and led them to one of the worst records in the league. He may be slightly better than Ben Gordon, but not by a lot, and Ben is younger, faster and stronger. Want me to name all the players that are better than Ray ALlen at this point in his career. It could take awhile. SOme people seem determined to look at these players throught their 2002 glasses. These players are NOT the same players they were 5 years ago.



> You can find exactly one that didn't have that sort of player on their roster. Dance as much as you like, as long as you like, you still have to explain how it is that teams built around "depth" have only been able to defeat teams built around power once in the last quarter century.


The 80's celtics were built around depth. The 80's lakers were deep. The first piston team was deep. The spurs have been reasonably deep. You can't be serious.



> The lack of playoff experience among the vets didn't seem to stop the Nets from reaching the finals in 2002. If you have the firepower at the top, and have vets that know their job and can perform it, it's generally enough. That's how teams manage to win titles despite starting Francisco Elson & Luc Longley.


This isn't 2002. And there you go with that Hyperbole again.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

mgolding said:


> It blows me away how many people have such a low opinion of the celtics prospects in the east. KG isnt just good, he's a absolute freakin superstar, top 20 player of all time kind of guy. He almost got to the finals with Sam Cassel and Spreewel as his best support in the Western Conference. Their depth is at the moment pitiful, but the Laker team that won three championships in a row werent exactly loaded across the board. If they use their full mid levels wisely and stay relatively healthy over the next two seasons they could contend for a title in 2009 and contend in the east this season.


The Laker teams weren't loaded, but Shaq and Kobe in 2000/2001 were both better than any one of KG, Allen, or Pierce right now. Plus, the Lakers roster depth back then was full of saavy veteran who knew how to play with the superstars and accept their roles. I don't see any Fox, Fisher, or Horry types, who weren't that talented but melded seamlessly. The Celtic supporting players are young inexperienced guys who don't have particularly high ceilings, at least judging from draft position.

They'll make the playoffs, maybe even win close to 50 games if the trio stays healthy all year, but man they have alot of pressure on them to perform every night. If not, there is nobody to step it up for them. That's why they aren't going anywhere in the playoffs the way they currently stand.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but isn't it a little scary that Allen, Garnett, and Pierce are all getting not only the best teammate they've ever had but the 2 best.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

Hustle said:


> I don't know if this has been mentioned, but isn't it a little scary that Allen, Garnett, and Pierce are all getting not only the best teammate they've ever had but the 2 best.


I'd take the 2004 Wolves' Cassell over Allen and Pierce of 2007-8 for sure. I don't buy these Celtics as being a scary team either. 

Now there's four comparable teams atop the East instead of three, that's all.


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

OMG! All I can say is WOW!

Garnett, Pierce, Allen trio?

I never pay attention to the Celtics because I hate Danny Ainge. But, whatever... I'm definitely going to root for Boston after Chicago. For me this is not just a team with a bunch of superstars. It's a team led by three stars who I really really want to see win because they're just too good not to be successful but they never had the right team around them. How can you not like a team led by three great professionals who will go all out every night. Knowing how bad Garnett, Pierce, and Allen want to win all these years, I think this team is going to be very special. Now Danny shouldn't stop here. From the current roster I only see three guys who can play significat role on the team: Rondo as the steady PG who has the potential to be a very good defender in the league, Tony Allen the athletic 2 guard who is an above average defender (I hope the injury last year turns out fine), Perkins a big body who can rebound and block shots to complement Garnett. They need two more guys: a scorer off the bench and another a bruiser vet type like Antonio Davis.

EDIT: Ok, looks like they choose to sign Eddie House to play that off the bench scorer role.


----------



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

BullsAttitude said:


> Actually, us Bulls fans have been watching the Bulls for ALONG time, notice the board and how many Fans there are on it. I've been an avid NBA fan since 1985 and a Bulls fan since 1987, so yes I was watching the NBA in the 2002 year. Sorry, yeah 50 wins got you the top seed in the East in 2002, but to come back at your talking about having a winning record to get in the playoffs, the Bulls were 30-52 in the '85-'86 season when the made the playoffs and faced Boston. Do you think the East was stronger than or in 2002? In 2002, there 3 actual decent teams in the East, New Jersey, Boston and Detroit; that was it. For your Boston team, what happened after that season, you all were a young team, why didn't you ever make it back to the ECFs, you still had Paul Pierce and Antoine Walker?


Oh, I don't know, maybe letting two of their roleplayers walk away for nothing and trading two more for the remains of Gin Baker? Think that might have had a little to do with it? Or maybe when the year after they traded away four more roleplayers for the chronically injured Raef Lafrentz, Chris the Malt Liquor Mihm, and Ricky Davis? Nahhh. Obviously it was it was the conference getting better. I mean, in the shark infested waters of the 2004 Eastern Conference the Boston Celtics fought their way in with 36 victories. Yeah, the conference was much tougher then that it was in 2002. And this year? I mean, this year it took 53 victories to be the #1 seed. I mean, that's what, like 40% more victories than the #1 seed in 2002, right? 

As for the days when 70% of the NBA made the playoffs, you had a lot of crappy teams making the playoffs. By definition, with only 943 victories to go around, the odds of 16 teams having .500 records are pretty close to nil. And, yes, that Bulls team was pretty crappy. 



BullsAttitude said:


> Hey, I never said Chicago is going to win it "Next" year ( I didn't say they would win the East either, I do think we can make the ECFs though) but you know what, I don't believe any team from the East will either. Even with KG coming to the East now. I see Phoenix coming out of the West and hell, San Antonio, Houston, and Utah are more likely to win the Title than any team from the East.


Until the rest of the East manages to catch up, Detroit's the team to beat, just as San Antonio's the team to beat in the West until some other team out there proves that they can do it. I've never said anything else in this thread. I was responding to the people predicting that Boston would lose in the first round and that depth always trumps starpower (when the first is incredibly unlikely and the second demonstrably false).



BullsAttitude said:


> Yeah, the experience that Kidd, Carter, and Jefferson had, plus whatever experience the role players had (New Jersey has been to the playoffs on a consistent basis) was able to beat the "lack of experience" from Toronto and their team.


It wasn't their _experience_, it was the fact that New Jersey had three all star calibre players and Toronto one. Then the Nets encountered a buzz saw named LeBron in the second round. Unlike all of the Nets big three, that buzz saw was one of the three best players in the NBA. And _despite_ New Jersey's edge in "depth" and "experience" that top 3 NBA player carried his team over NJ. (Because, come post season time, having that transcendent talent tends to be worth a little more than having a few very good talents).



BullsAttitude said:


> Any old vet is not going to win you a title, a player that has been in the year 2 leagues is considered a vet, doesn't mean he is ready to play under pressure in the playoffs. You need vets with "Playoff Experience" to be successful, ones that know how the playoffs operate and what to expect from them.
> 
> You can knock San Antonio's scrub players all you want, but a lot of the players they have have been in pressure situations in Euroleagues, the Olympics and the playoffs before. San Antonio is a year-in year-out, playoff team, so they learn each year.


Do you really think the Spurs would compete for jack**** without Timmeh? They'd struggle to make the Western Conference playoffs if Duncan retired tomorrow. Though they would probably be able to eke out the 39-40 wins it will take to make the postseason in the shark infested waters of the Eastern Conference.



BullsAttitude said:


> Sorry, your Boston is not and they don't have the experience to back it up.


Last time I checked all the vets on the Boston roster had extensive postseason experience. It's their shrinking supply of kids that lack it.



BullsAttitude said:


> You can keep talking about Stars and lesser players being able to win a Title but it takes more than that to win it all. From your posts, I can see you have been watching the NBA that long and what it really takes to get to the promised land. Boston might be able to pull it off one year with the right additions but Boston has a 3 year window to win it all, if it doesn't happen then be prepared for losing again, while my team (barring injuries or something freakish) will probably still be one of, if not, the top team in the EASTERN Conf. In 3 years, the East's young teams will have improved and some of these young players like Luol Deng will be MVP-caliber by then.


If you have one or two of the top 5 players in the NBA, the rest of the job is easy. Boston doesn't have that advantage, Garnett's only a top 10 player, their model is going to be closer to the New Jersey model, only with a better big 3. They're also going to rely on landing an older vet with a little pop left using the MLE next summer to see if they can counteract an aging Timmeh with a top ten guy and a couple of top 20 players. They're also hoping that Pruitt ramps up quickly (made obvious by Eddie House's contract). They may succeed, they may not. But at least they're going to give it a shot in their only possible window because prior to May 22nd they were Seattle east, a team that when healthy wasn't bad enough to land a top lottery pick, and not good enough to go anywhere.



BullsAttitude said:


> If you want to keep arguing, that's fine, but why don't you check out my post right after my last one, with the link to ESPN, or go check out SI's rankings of the East. I think you'll be surprised what some of the "Expert Analysts" are saying.


Why do I care what Hollinger thinks? Half the time he's full of ****. Right now Detroit's still the class of the East, until Wade proves that he's healthy and Shaq is ready. Cleveland always has a chance because they have that _one_ guy that can singlehandedly take over a series. Chicago doesn't have that guy, and no matter how much the "experts" ooh and ahh over the kids, the Bulls are going to need to cash some of them in for someone like Kobe if they're serious about winning.


----------



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

*Re: I've had enough......*



The Krakken said:


> Who says that? The pundits don't agree. No the reason bulls fans think they are the conference favorites, is because they have
> a REALLY GOOD 1-2-3 scoring punch AND....
> One of the top defensive teams in the league AND.....
> an embarrasment of riches on the bench AND......
> ...


And they still lack that MVP-calibre player to put them over the top. You Bulls fans keep dancing and dancing, and exactly zero of you have even addressed the fact that 24 of the last 25 title winners were built around one or two or three of the best players in the game, and then roleplayers that know their job. That's it. Not borderline all stars. Not even good NBA-starter level players. Just guys that do what they're told and don't cause much trouble.




The Krakken said:


> And you'd be presenting simultaneously a false dichotomy AND a strawman. Look, its not EITHER a superstar or a veteran scrub. You conveniently ignore players like Horry, Bowen, Barry, etc....hey what do you know....those guys are quality vets, who are not anything REMOTELY like the scrubs you mention....and you ignore them to bolster your argument by creating hyperbole. By the way, Antoine Walker and James Posey as role players are far superior to any player on the Celtics bench. IN fact, they are MUCH better than any player on that roster outside of the big three.


I specifically mentioned Bowen earlier. He isn't nearly the defender he once was and he'd struggle to score on a drunken Lindsey Lohan. He's nothing more than a vet that knows his role. As for Horry, when you talked about "quality" vets it didn't occur to me that you'd stretched the definition to include the only guy in the NBA that Dikembe Mutombo calls "Pops". He's the NBA equivalent to a pinch hitter.



The Krakken said:


> He was also a defensive anchor on that team. Even moreso than KG will be on the Celts.


This claim is so idiotic that it doesn't bear addressing. NO, the Miami Heat's backup center didn't have a bigger impact than a 2nd Team All NBA Defender will.



The Krakken said:


> Based on PPG maybe, but certainly not based on getting stops in critical situations. That's what matters most in the playoffs. As for any statistic you can conjure up, there are three types of lies ... I was there, I know what I saw.


The third being your idiotic arguments? The 2002 Celtics strength was their ability to get stops in crucial situations, and force opponents into shooting more jumpers and shooting them poorly. Oh, and preventing teams from getting shots off at all. They played the fifth fastest pace in the NBA and yet only nine teams allowed fewer shots. Did their opponents all just forget how to play basketball on the nights when Boston was in town? Or maybe, just maybe, were the Celtics simply a good defensive team? Because apparently you didn't see a whole lot. Or see a lot of strange things, like the Bulls make the playoffs the last four years. (No one else I know has seen that.)



The Krakken said:


> It takes a LOT more than that. It takes a commitment to wanting to be good defensively, by the players. Your oversimplified argument does a tremendous job of explaining why Pheonix--who is filled both with excellent coaching, and players who "know the job", is still one of the most pourous defensive teams in the league.


But they're not. Here's another thing that you "see". Or more precisely assume that you see because you're not watching closely.



The Krakken said:


> More hyperbole. He'll be an MVP calibre player in less than 3 years. That would make him 25. He's already surpassed Pierce, and he's better than Ray Allen as well. He's not as spectacular as those two, but ask John paxson or Scott Skiles if he would trade Luol Deng for Paul Pierce for even one season and see what kind of response you get. ... Opinion and conjecture.


Mine was not opinion and conjecture, yours is. Deng has shown no ability to take games over the way James does. None. Zero. Zilch. If anything he's a shorter Kevin Garnett without the rebounding.



The Krakken said:


> Yes, but those teams also had players who were CLEARLY top 5 players in the league. THe bulls had arguably two of the top 3. THe same with BOTH iterations of the Lakers.


And this proves that the strength at the top of the rotation, specifically that you _need_ a player like that if you hope to win, how exactly? 



The Krakken said:


> The Spurs have the current best player in the league and one of the best PGS in the league.


And Manu. Then it's Oberto, Elson, Udrih, a 48 year old designated shooter, and a bunch of other guys without a prayer of starting anyplace else. Oh, and Barry, a borderline NBA All Star. OK, I'm kidding. He's a nice bench player. Of course, if he's a "quality vet" so're Eddie House and Mr. Moobs.



The Krakken said:


> The Celtics, by the way were DEEPER than the Pacific, as were the showtime lakers and the pistons.


The 1980s Lakers and Celtics were assembled before the salary cap, which is why they were able to accumulate all those hall of famers and keep them. Once you got to the late 80s, because the free agency rules were increasingly byzantine, it became harder to assemble rosters the likes of the Showtime Lakers and 80s Celtics. This _increased_ the premium on MVP-calibre players.



The Krakken said:


> The celtics don't have any of that. KG is no longer a top 5 player in this league.


Could you please point out to me anywhere in this thread that I claimed that the Celtics were now odds on favourites to win the NBA title? Anywhere? I've been answering the "The Celtics are one and done because their roleplayers sux0rs!!!" claim. They are not a one and done team, and not doomed to miss the playoffs (as the Snausage King claimed) because they lack übertalented players like Francisco Elson, Fabricio Oberto, Eric Snow and Ira Newble. Whether you Bulls fans want to admit it or not, this is a stars league. Right now Boston has them and you don't. That's what's going to neutralise your advantage 4-15.



The Krakken said:


> The 80's celtics were built around depth. The 80's lakers were deep.


The 80s Lakers were built around Magic, Kareem, and (later) James Worthy. The Celtics around Bird, McHale, & Parish. They didn't rely on "depth" to win their titles. They relied on three of the greatest players in the history of the game and a few other hall of famers beyond. The Milwaukee Bucks of that era were pretty deep, how many titles did they win?



The Krakken said:


> The spurs have been reasonably deep. You can't be serious.


If you seriously think that a team whose big three was Tony Parker, Manu Ginobli, and Michael Finley would win more than 36-38 games in the West, then I want some of what you're smoking. Because it has to be some gooood ****.


----------



## BullsAttitude (Jun 11, 2002)

ehmunro said:


> Oh, I don't know, maybe letting two of their roleplayers walk away for nothing and trading two more for the remains of Gin Baker? Think that might have had a little to do with it? Or maybe when the year after they traded away four more roleplayers for the chronically injured Raef Lafrentz, Chris the Malt Liquor Mihm, and Ricky Davis? Nahhh. Obviously it was it was the conference getting better. I mean, in the shark infested waters of the 2004 Eastern Conference the Boston Celtics fought their way in with 36 victories. Yeah, the conference was much tougher then that it was in 2002. And this year? I mean, this year it took 53 victories to be the #1 seed. I mean, that's what, like 40% more victories than the #1 seed in 2002, right?
> 
> As for the days when 70% of the NBA made the playoffs, you had a lot of crappy teams making the playoffs. By definition, with only 943 victories to go around, the odds of 16 teams having .500 records are pretty close to nil. And, yes, that Bulls team was pretty crappy.
> 
> ...


These are not the playoff matchups but the finish by records.

Eastern Conference 2001-2002

1. NJ 52-30
2. Det 50-32
3. Bos 49-33
4. Orl 44-38
5. Cha 44-38
6. Phi 43-39
7. Tor 42-20
8. Ind 42-40

Worst Record 
Chicago 21-61(Didn't tank, just really, really terrible team)

Eastern Conference 2006-2007

1. Det 53-29
2. Cle 50-32
3. Chi 49-33
4. Tor 47-35
5. Mia 44-38
6. NJ 41-41
7. Was 41-41
8. Orl 40-42

Worst Record
Boston 24-58 (When they tanked the rest of the season just to get a chance at Greg Oden)

Wow, that's a big difference of records in 2002 compared to 2007. The difference is only 3 teams had a realistic chance of winning the East in 2002, that would have been New Jersy, Boston and Detroit. This past year you could say that 6 teams could have won the East and possibly 7 if Gilbert Arenas and Caron Butler did not go down with injuries.

Now, with Boston being added to the mix, this upcoming year, you could possibly say that there could be 8 teams that could win the East, that is parity, that is strength of a Conference within itself. Yes, the East is still not better than the West, but it has more parity within itself than it had in the 2001-2002 season. 

Also, the 2004 season you talked about was when Indiana finished 61-21 with Detroit finishing at 54-28, then New Jersey at 47-35. Each team had a chance at winning the East, but clearly Indiana and Detroit were leaders and much stronger teams than New Jersey and Detroit were in the 2001-2002 season.

You want to think the East was stronger than because your beloved Celtics made it to the ECFs, end of story. If had not been for the great comeback, they would have lost the series 4-1. New Jersey was the best in the East that year and that doesn't say a lot.

I'm not one of the people saying Boston would be done in the 1st round, I don't see that happening unless they get an unfavorable matchup. I can see Boston making it to the ECFs, but it's going to be very tough with the surrounding cast and the thin bench.

The way you post it, it's like Chicago had Jordan and in 90-91 they just put all the players around him and poof, they won a title. Do you realize that same core of players learned each year from losses to Detroit, that is how that team became a Champion.

Second Chicago group, same thing, the core minus Dennis Rodman and Jordan in '94 learned from losses to New York and Orlando. That core was Pippen, Toni Kukoc, Luc Longley, Steve Kerr, Bill Wennington, Ron Harper and Jud Buechler.

Same with Detroit team that won the title in 04, same with the Spurs of '03, same with the Lakers of '00-'02, same with the Spurs of '99, same with Houston of the 90's, same with Detroit of the 80's and so on and so on. You can't just get "Stars" and put players around them and win, doesn't happen, there is a learning curve. Even the Heat with Shaq and Wade had to lose in '05, before winning in '06.

Yes, Chicago doesn't have the MVP-caliber player right now, but what happens if Luol Deng becomes that player this year. You can't say it won't happen, cause it can happen, not saying it will, but it can. 

Mentioned you haven't seen anything from Deng to prove he can take over a game, go back to the series against the Heat when he was the one stepping up in the 4th quarters hitting the big shots. He has shown he can do it, now he has to do it on a consistent basis.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

King Joseus said:


> I'd take the 2004 Wolves' Cassell over Allen and Pierce of 2007-8 for sure.


Why? Cassell was older in 2004 that those guys will be next year.


----------



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

BullsAttitude said:


> These are not the playoff matchups but the finish by records.
> 
> Eastern Conference 2001-2002
> 
> ...


:lol: :lol: :lol: 

Yeah, Telfair, Gomes, Green, Allan Ray, Delonte West. that's the heart and soul of a budding 50 win team that is. 

:lol: :lol: :lol: 

I think we can now establish that you "see" things that aren't there. The Celtics flat out sucked. Their young players were grossly overrated. When Pierce went down, they had their chance to shine and they went 4-31. They sucked like an aging shoewhore. If you'd watched even so much as five minutes of Celtics basketball you'd've realised that Ainge had successfully assembled an historically bad NBA team (outside Pierce, a player that he inherited). That's why all those kids are gone, because for the most part they aren't going to be good NBA players (outside Jefferson, though I still expect AJ to be the Jim Rice of the NBA). Some of them are going to struggle to find another NBA job. And, just a note, the 2002 Bulls had high first round picks on their roster, the Celtics? Their two highest picks were the injured Pierce and Zoolander (who is one of the worst SFs in the NBA). After that it was two mid first round picks, Telfailure & Jefferson. So why was a team built around high first round picks "just terrible" and a team of mid to late first round picks and second round picks "tanking" Unless you're contending that the Eastern Conference is so crappy that a team like that _should_ be contending for a playoff spot. Except that that would disprove your contention. ... 



BullsAttitude said:


> Wow, that's a big difference of records in 2002 compared to 2007. The difference is only 3 teams had a realistic chance of winning the East in 2002, that would have been New Jersy, Boston and Detroit. This past year you could say that 6 teams could have won the East and possibly 7 if Gilbert Arenas and Caron Butler did not go down with injuries.


In other words, your "proof" that the conference is infinitely stronger now is your claim that two .500 teams had a realistic shot of taking the conference? When a .500 record wouldn't have been enough to get you into the playoffs five years ago? Ignoring for a moment your earlier slagging of Cleveland.



BullsAttitude said:


> Also, the 2004 season you talked about was when Indiana finished 61-21 with Detroit finishing at 54-28, then New Jersey at 47-35. Each team had a chance at winning the East, but clearly Indiana and Detroit were leaders and much stronger teams than New Jersey and Detroit were in the 2001-2002 season.


There were only two teams with a shot at the east in 2004, and the Nets weren't one of them. Just as there were only two last season, and the Bulls weren't one of them. 



BullsAttitude said:


> You want to think the East was stronger than because your beloved Celtics made it to the ECFs, end of story. If had not been for the great comeback, they would have lost the series 4-1. New Jersey was the best in the East that year and that doesn't say a lot.


The East was stronger that year as they obviously had _more_ of the "parity" that you're claiming makes the conference so much tougher (even though you don't need to have a winning team to play in the postseason). And if Pierce hadn't run out of gas at the end of game 4, New Jersey would have lost the series 4-1 (because Boston was on the verge of going up 3-1 on the Nets).



BullsAttitude said:


> The way you post it, it's like Chicago had Jordan and in 90-91 they just put all the players around him and poof, they won a title. Do you realize that same core of players learned each year from losses to Detroit, that is how that team became a Champion.


No, the Bulls were two of the 50 best all time (Jordan & Pippen) and then complementary roleplayers around them. Just like the second threepeat squad. Just like Houston's second title squad was built around one of the best centers ever to play the game and a hall of fame wingman, and then complementary parts. Not mystical "quality" that you Chicago fans seem to define as "Any vets not playing for Cleveland or Boston because we're afraid that they'll be better than us", but simply guys that do their jobs and don't screw up too much.



BullsAttitude said:


> Same with Detroit team that won the title in 04, same with the Spurs of '03, same with the Lakers of '00-'02, same with the Spurs of '99, same with Houston of the 90's, same with Detroit of the 80's and so on and so on. You can't just get "Stars" and put players around them and win, doesn't happen, there is a learning curve. Even the Heat with Shaq and Wade had to lose in '05, before winning in '06.


The '04 Pistons, recall, are the exception. San Antonio has had a different cast of surrounding characters for Timmeh each go around. Many times these "quality vets" with "experience" didn't actually have playoff experience (see the 2003 Spurs with Stephen Jackson and a 19 year old Tony Parker). In fact, it happens all the time. The Lakers threepeat squad started Samaki Walker, the scrubbiest scrub if ever a scrub there was. But with two of the best three players in the NBA, it doesn't matter that you give major minutes to Rick Fox's undead corpse.



BullsAttitude said:


> Yes, Chicago doesn't have the MVP-caliber player right now, but what happens if Luol Deng becomes that player this year. You can't say it won't happen, cause it can happen, not saying it will, but it can.


:lol: :lol: :lol: 

Yeah, he's just going to suddenly leapfrog Kobe, LBJ, Dwyane Wade, Amare, Dirk, and Carmelo. 

:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## BullsAttitude (Jun 11, 2002)

ehmunro said:


> :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> Yeah, Telfair, Gomes, Green, Allan Ray, Delonte West. that's the heart and soul of a budding 50 win team that is.
> 
> ...


No, what I was saying is Boston finished with a 24-58 record even with tanking games at the end of the season. Chicago that year was just plain bad and those 2 high 1st round picks you are talking about would be Tyson Chandler and Eddy Curry, straight out of high school? Yeah, those high drafted, top notch High Schoolers will put you straight into the playoffs, especially the ones with no experience. Hell, only now is Chandler coming out and showing some of the potential we saw in the '04-'05 season. 

Answer this, How good was Garnett straight out of High School, how bout Jermaine O'neal, or Kobe Bryant, how long did it take for them to become the MVP players they are or were? I would say Lebron and Amare are kinda the exception to the rule of contributing once they got in the league straight out of high school. Still didn't see them in the playoffs though.




ehmunro said:


> In other words, your "proof" that the conference is infinitely stronger now is your claim that two .500 teams had a realistic shot of taking the conference? When a .500 record wouldn't have been enough to get you into the playoffs five years ago? Ignoring for a moment your earlier slagging of Cleveland.


New Jersey when healthy (with Kristic in the fold also, remember he missed the season due to injury) could have won the East and Washington would not have finished at .500 if Arenas and Butler was still healthy, you know that. Hell, they were at the top of the East for a while during the season, their downfall is their defense. Still, sometimes you never know in the playoffs, especially with a team that has been there the past 2 seasons.



ehmunro said:


> There were only two teams with a shot at the east in 2004, and the Nets weren't one of them. Just as there were only two last season, and the Bulls weren't one of them.


No, there were more than 2 teams with a shot. Remember, New Jersey went up 3-2 on the Pistons in the 2nd round? Hell,if the Bulls had not slipped up at the end of the season and had the 2nd seed, you might have seen them in the Finals. 



ehmunro said:


> The East was stronger that year as they obviously had _more_ of the "parity" that you're claiming makes the conference so much tougher (even though you don't need to have a winning team to play in the postseason). And if Pierce hadn't run out of gas at the end of game 4, New Jersey would have lost the series 4-1 (because Boston was on the verge of going up 3-1 on the Nets).


Keep believing that. Ran out of gas? Is that the reason? Why didn't you beat New Jersey in Game 6 on your homecourt? If Boston could have taken the series, they should have at least been able to extend it to a 7th game, correct?



ehmunro said:


> No, the Bulls were two of the 50 best all time (Jordan & Pippen) and then complementary roleplayers around them. Just like the second threepeat squad. Just like Houston's second title squad was built around one of the best centers ever to play the game and a hall of fame wingman, and then complementary parts. Not mystical "quality" that you Chicago fans seem to define as "Any vets not playing for Cleveland or Boston because we're afraid that they'll be better than us", but simply guys that do their jobs and don't screw up too much.


Pippen was not one of the 10 best players in the '91 season, he wasn't looked at as 1 of the top 5 players until the 93-94 season. Go back and check the Bulls progress from when Jordan joined the team until they finally broke through. A Team learns in the playoffs, it learns to grow and so does the "Role" players on the team.

Cleveland has some "quality" vets in Big Z, he went to the playoffs in the 97-98 season, they have Donyell Marshall who played with the Jazz when they went to the playoffs, Damon Jones who was a member of the Miami team that went to the '05 Conf. Finals, Larry Hughes who has been to the playoffs 3 straight seasons. Plus, there team did make it to the conf. semis last year, which did help in this postseason. Cleveland's problem is Big Z isn't getting any younger, neither is Marshall or Jones, or Eric Snow, another player I forgot about. He went to the Finals with Seattle in '96 and Philly in '01. They need to add more role players around Lebron for them to continue their success. Big Z is important to the team and they won't have him around forever.




ehmunro said:


> The '04 Pistons, recall, are the exception. San Antonio has had a different cast of surrounding characters for Timmeh each go around. Many times these "quality vets" with "experience" didn't actually have playoff experience (see the 2003 Spurs with Stephen Jackson and a 19 year old Tony Parker). In fact, it happens all the time. The Lakers threepeat squad started Samaki Walker, the scrubbiest scrub if ever a scrub there was. But with two of the best three players in the NBA, it doesn't matter that you give major minutes to Rick Fox's undead corpse.


Don't forget that Pistons team was 1 quarter away from repeating as Champs. Actually, Parker did play for the Spurs in the '02 playoffs and so did Stephen Jackson(you were wrong there), they lost to the eventual NBA Champions, the LA Lakers in the 2nd round. Just like the Spurs did in the the 2000 and 2001 seasons! Those Lakers teams lost to the eventual West. Conf. Champions Utah Jazz in the '97 and '98 season. They got swept by the '99 NBA Champion Spurs during the '99 playoffs. Man, I'm starting to see a pattern here!



ehmunro said:


> :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> Yeah, he's just going to suddenly leapfrog Kobe, LBJ, Dwyane Wade, Amare, Dirk, and Carmelo.
> 
> :lol: :lol: :lol:


No, he is not going to leapfrog them, I never said he was going to become the best player in the NBA, I just said he might have an MVP-caliber type season. An MVP is a player that brings the consistency everynight. Leads the team and is the go-to guy. If he averages 21-23pts, 7-8rebs, 5-6assists, and 1-2steals or blocks, that is an MVP-caliber type season. Just like Pippen had in the '93-'94 season, I still wouldn't say he was the best player in the league, just became one of them that year. You missed my point again!


----------



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

BullsAttitude said:


> No, what I was saying is Boston finished with a 24-58 record even with tanking games at the end of the season. Chicago that year was just plain bad and those 2 high 1st round picks you are talking about would be Tyson Chandler and Eddy Curry, straight out of high school? Yeah, those high drafted, top notch High Schoolers will put you straight into the playoffs, especially the ones with no experience. Hell, only now is Chandler coming out and showing some of the potential we saw in the '04-'05 season.


I'm sorry, where did I say that the 2002 Bulls should have made the playoffs? They were a crappy team. But so were last year's Celtics. Take Pierce away from that team and it would struggle to win a dozen games. Their "tanking" consisted of shutting down the injured Pierce for the season, which turned them into a minor league team. And a bad one at that. Neither the 2002 Bulls nor the 2007 Celtics were any good. Both earned their miserable records with abject ****tiness.



BullsAttitude said:


> Answer this, How good was Garnett straight out of High School, how bout Jermaine O'neal, or Kobe Bryant, how long did it take for them to become the MVP players they are or were? I would say Lebron and Amare are kinda the exception to the rule of contributing once they got in the league straight out of high school. Still didn't see them in the playoffs though.


Garnett was also pretty good coming out of high school. Bryant and O'Neal were mid first round picks, it would only be reasonable to expect some lead time (though it only took Kobe a year to ramp his game up).



BullsAttitude said:


> New Jersey when healthy (with Kristic in the fold also, remember he missed the season due to injury) could have won the East and Washington would not have finished at .500 if Arenas and Butler was still healthy, you know that. Hell, they were at the top of the East for a while during the season, their downfall is their defense. Still, sometimes you never know in the playoffs, especially with a team that has been there the past 2 seasons.


Every team has injuries. The Nets were not running away with anything when Krstic got injured and the Wizards were only a couple of games over .500 when the Hibachi flamed out. 




BullsAttitude said:


> Hell,if the Bulls had not slipped up at the end of the season and had the 2nd seed, you might have seen them in the Finals.


Considering how little effort the Pistons expended in beating the Bulls, you could argue that part of the reason they got buggered by the Cavs was that they weren't ready for the series.  



BullsAttitude said:


> Keep believing that. Ran out of gas? Is that the reason? Why didn't you beat New Jersey in Game 6 on your homecourt? If Boston could have taken the series, they should have at least been able to extend it to a 7th game, correct?


If Pierce hadn't been dragging that fourth quarter in game four, and had at least managed to hit those two free throws, then the Celtics would have been up 3-1 and NJ would have been playing with their backs to the wall. When Boston lost game 4 the clock re-set (so to speak) and the Celtics deflated. Had the Celtics incompetent GM elected to send Kedrick Brown (the player that Bryan Colangelo wanted) to Phoenix, instead of Joe Johnson, the Celtics would have been in much better shape (because Pierce wouldn't have been completely knackered come the ECF). The Celtics, recall, were Pierce and a bunch of roleplayers, so he was asked to carry the offense.



BullsAttitude said:


> Pippen was not one of the 10 best players in the '91 season, he wasn't looked at as 1 of the top 5 players until the 93-94 season. Go back and check the Bulls progress from when Jordan joined the team until they finally broke through. A Team learns in the playoffs, it learns to grow and so does the "Role" players on the team.


Oh, yes, I forgot, back in 1991 the NBA was overflowing with All-Star 2nd Team All Defense point forwards. Why every team had two or three of them. Scottie wasn't even a top 100 player in those days. :lol:



BullsAttitude said:


> Don't forget that Pistons team was 1 quarter away from repeating as Champs. Actually, Parker did play for the Spurs in the '02 playoffs and so did Stephen Jackson(you were wrong there), they lost to the eventual NBA Champions


No, _you_ are wrong here. Stephen Jackson did not participate in the 2002 playoffs. Look it up if you don't believe me. As for the Shaq/Kobe Lakers threepeat, sure, had nothing to do with having two of the top three players in the game. Nothing. Nope. All the roleplayers. Because if you have the roleplayers, finding the MVP-calibre player(s) is easy. And, of course, the Lakers losses years earlier had nothing to do with Utah's dominant PF/PG duo, trumping LA's one man show (keeping in mind that the second and third best players on that team were, respectively, Eddie Jones and the young Kobe). Nothing whatsoever.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: I've had enough......*



ehmunro said:


> And they still lack that MVP-calibre player to put them over the top. You Bulls fans keep dancing and dancing, and exactly zero of you have even addressed the fact that 24 of the last 25 title winners were built around one or two or three of the best players in the game, and then roleplayers that know their job. That's it. Not borderline all stars. Not even good NBA-starter level players. Just guys that do what they're told and don't cause much trouble.


So: Horace Grant, Toni Kukoc, B.J. Armstrong, Bill Cartwright, Dennis Rodman, Ron Harper, Manu Ginobili, Vinnie Johnson, Joe Dumars, Michael Cooper, James Worthy, Byron Scott, Kareem Abdul Jabbar (who was WAY past his prime in the 80s), Robert Horry, Bruce Bowen, etc are not even good NBA starter level players. Ok. I think we understand each other now. I'll simply agree to disagree. 

As for us "dancing" and not addressing your issue. Actually we HAVE addressed it. Over and over and over again. My contention is not that Stars don't have a BETTER chance of winning. They do. But also that they don't win those titles by themselves. You need MORE than just "servicable" players around those guys, as evidenced by the list above. 

You keep presenting us with this "either/or" false dichotomy: Either it's the stars, or its the depth.

My contention is that its both. And you have yet to dismiss that, without (AGAIN) intentionally devaluing players who are FAR more than just servicable players who "are not even good starter level players".



> I specifically mentioned Bowen earlier. He isn't nearly the defender he once was and he'd struggle to score on a drunken Lindsey Lohan.


And yet he's more valuable than ever to them, BECAUSE he's been there before, a point you continue to try and gloss over. ANd there you go again with your hyperbole. Devaluing players because they aren't stars. I see right through you.



> He's nothing more than a vet that knows his role. As for Horry, when you talked about "quality" vets it didn't occur to me that you'd stretched the definition to include the only guy in the NBA that Dikembe Mutombo calls "Pops". He's the NBA equivalent to a pinch hitter.


Opinion. Hyperbole. Conjecture. And wrong to boot. He won his first two titles with HOUSTON. And he was FAR FAR more than a pinch hitter back then. 



> This claim is so idiotic that it doesn't bear addressing. NO, the Miami Heat's backup center didn't have a bigger impact than a 2nd Team All NBA Defender will.


And yet, you not only addressed the comment, you misrepresented what I said, and threw in a personal attack (a sure sign that someone is losing an argument) to boot.



> The third being your idiotic arguments?


More personal attacks.



> The 2002 Celtics strength was their ability to get stops in crucial situations, and force opponents into shooting more jumpers and shooting them poorly.


Sure it was.:azdaja: 



> They played the fifth fastest pace in the NBA and yet only nine teams allowed fewer shots.


They played in the east. This should surprise nobody. Again with the lies...err..i mean stats.....



> Because apparently you didn't see a whole lot. Or see a lot of strange things, like the Bulls make the playoffs the last four years. (No one else I know has seen that.)


Nice try. I'm counting this coming season. But then you'd know that if.......




> Mine was not opinion and conjecture, yours is. Deng has shown no ability to take games over the way James does. None. Zero. Zilch. If anything he's a shorter Kevin Garnett without the rebounding.


THis has been addressed and refuted. Apparantly you are the one not paying attention.



> And this proves that the strength at the top of the rotation, specifically that you _need_ a player like that if you hope to win, how exactly?


Uhh...WHAT?? I'm not trying to even prove that. I've already proven that you need MORE than that. That that alone isn't usually enough. 



> And Manu. Then it's Oberto, Elson, Udrih, a 48 year old designated shooter, and a bunch of other guys without a prayer of starting anyplace else. Oh, and Barry, a borderline NBA All Star. OK, I'm kidding. He's a nice bench player. Of course, if he's a "quality vet" so're Eddie House and Mr. Moobs.


Except, as we keep repeating ad nausem, they have limited to NO playoff experience.



> The 1980s Lakers and Celtics were assembled before the salary cap, which is why they were able to accumulate all those hall of famers and keep them. Once you got to the late 80s, because the free agency rules were increasingly byzantine, it became harder to assemble rosters the likes of the Showtime Lakers and 80s Celtics. This _increased_ the premium on MVP-calibre players.


Irrelavent. And does nothing to refute my assertion that you were and remain wrong about depth on championship teams--regardless of stars.



> Could you please point out to me anywhere in this thread that I claimed that the Celtics were now odds on favourites to win the NBA title? Anywhere? I've been answering the "The Celtics are one and done because their roleplayers sux0rs!!!" claim. They are not a one and done team, and not doomed to miss the playoffs (as the Snausage King claimed) because they lack übertalented players like Francisco Elson, Fabricio Oberto, Eric Snow and Ira Newble. Whether you Bulls fans want to admit it or not, this is a stars league. Right now Boston has them and you don't. That's what's going to neutralise your advantage 4-15.


We'll see. I expect to see you hear in full apology mode, when our 4-15 isn't neutralized.



> The 80s Lakers were built around Magic, Kareem, and (later) James


Later as in 1985? And you forgot Byron Scott, and Michael Cooper.



> The Celtics around Bird, McHale, & Parish. They didn't rely on "depth" to win their titles. They relied on three of the greatest players in the history of the game and a few other hall of famers beyond.


And danny ainge, and dennis johnson.





> If you seriously think that a team whose big three was Tony Parker, Manu Ginobli, and Michael Finley would win more than 36-38 games in the West, then I want some of what you're smoking. Because it has to be some gooood ****.


Show me where I said that. I'm finished addressing your continued fals dichotomies.


----------



## BullsAttitude (Jun 11, 2002)

ehmunro said:


> I'm sorry, where did I say that the 2002 Bulls should have made the playoffs? They were a crappy team. But so were last year's Celtics. Take Pierce away from that team and it would struggle to win a dozen games. Their "tanking" consisted of shutting down the injured Pierce for the season, which turned them into a minor league team. And a bad one at that. Neither the 2002 Bulls nor the 2007 Celtics were any good. Both earned their miserable records with abject ****tiness.


"And, just a note, the 2002 Bulls had high first round picks on their roster, the Celtics? Their two highest picks were the injured Pierce and Zoolander (who is one of the worst SFs in the NBA). After that it was two mid first round picks, Telfailure & Jefferson. So why was a team built around high first round picks "just terrible" and a team of mid to late first round picks and second round picks "tanking" Unless you're contending that the Eastern Conference is so crappy that a team like that should be contending for a playoff spot. Except that that would disprove your contention. ..."

Why was a team built around high first round picks "just terrible" cause those picks were 2 high schoolers, that's why, with no support around them. The Bulls traded away their best player for the rights to Chandler, remember him, Elton Brand. Also, the next best player on the Bulls was Ron Artest, a mid-1st round pick. Jamal Crawford was out with an ACL tear, and Marcus Fizer, well I just won't go there. Dragon Tarlac, another player, was a 2nd round pick, so the Bulls were as I stated, terrible, with a unproven college coach in Tim Floyd.

Yes, take Pierce off the Celtics and you have a minor league team, I agree with that, but the Celtics sat Pierce for one reason and one reason only, to get a chance at GREG ODEN! Memphis did the same thing! If Pierce is such a great player and fierce competitor, he would have still wanted to play. Hell, Michael was injured but he still played, Pippen was injured, but still played, Larry Bird was injured, but still played, Tim Duncan was injured, and still played, Wade came back injured and played. Pierce's injury wasn't so bad that he had to sit out. He has the offseason to recover you know. Same goes for Minnesota in sitting KG, not making the playoffs, improve our draft position.

That's why I respected Philly after trading Iverson, they still competed there hardest till the end of the season. Didn't care what happened in the lottery. 






ehmunro said:


> Garnett was also pretty good coming out of high school. Bryant and O'Neal were mid first round picks, it would only be reasonable to expect some lead time (though it only took Kobe a year to ramp his game up).


Garnett was good, so was Kobe, so was Jermaine O'neal, you have to be to have a chance to play in this league, but when did they start making a difference? Garnett was putting up good numbers on a BAD TEAM cause he got playing time right away. Kobe had a chance to learn behind Eddie Jones, Byron Scott and Nick Van Exel.




ehmunro said:


> Every team has injuries. The Nets were not running away with anything when Krstic got injured and the Wizards were only a couple of games over .500 when the Hibachi flamed out.


No, but if he had not gone out, the chemistry of the team and depth would have been better, not knowing how good they could have been. The only reason the Wizards were a few games over .500 when Hibachi flamed out, cause Caron Butler had gone down almost a month earlier. Hard to stay as competive when you lose your 2nd best player.




ehmunro said:


> Considering how little effort the Pistons expended in beating the Bulls, you could argue that part of the reason they got buggered by the Cavs was that they weren't ready for the series.


Little effort, well, I'll state this, Bulls weren't ready to compete with the Pistons in a series. I even admitted that I didn't expect the Bulls to beat the Pistons in the series, go back on this board and find some of my post. My problem was the Bulls didn't show up in games 1 & 2 at all, then couldn't hold on to the lead in Game 3. That was the story of this team, they blew at least 10 double digit leads last season. Once they learn to put the foot down on the throat and not have those stretches, then you'll see "How good" this team is becoming. Until then, yes I don't see the Bulls being able to win the EAst

Main reason Pistons didn't beat the Cavs, OVERCONFIDENCE. 







ehmunro said:


> Oh, yes, I forgot, back in 1991 the NBA was overflowing with All-Star 2nd Team All Defense point forwards. Why every team had two or three of them. Scottie wasn't even a top 100 player in those days. :lol:


Once again you are trying to say I said something I didn't. I didn't say he wasn't one of the best players at his position, or one of the better defensive players in the leage, I said he wasn't one of the top 10 Players in the NBA or perceived that way for that matter. Here's a list in no particular order.

1. Michael Jordan
2. Magic Johnson
3. Larry Bird
4. Isiah Thomas
5. Patrick Ewing
6. Hakeem Olajuwon
7. David Robinison
8. Clyde Drexler
9. Charles Barkley
10. Dominique Wilkins
11. Karl Malone
12. John Stockton 
need I go on?

There, there is 12 players that were perceived to be better than Scottie Pippen in the '90-'91 season. COMPREHEND WHAT I TYPE!




ehmunro said:


> No, _you_ are wrong here. Stephen Jackson did not participate in the 2002 playoffs. Look it up if you don't believe me. As for the Shaq/Kobe Lakers threepeat, sure, had nothing to do with having two of the top three players in the game. Nothing. Nope. All the roleplayers. Because if you have the roleplayers, finding the MVP-calibre player(s) is easy. And, of course, the Lakers losses years earlier had nothing to do with Utah's dominant PF/PG duo, trumping LA's one man show (keeping in mind that the second and third best players on that team were, respectively, Eddie Jones and the young Kobe). Nothing whatsoever.


Ok, I was wrong about Jackson not playing in the '02 playoffs, but Parker did, he had playoff experience and it also didn't hurt that he started playing pro ball in Europe at the age of 16. Yeah, it didn't hurt having Shaq or Kobe, but why didn't they win it in the '99 season. Yeah, the dominant PF/PG duo had something to do with, so did the fact that Utah was one of the older more experienced teams in the league. Didn't hurt that they had been to the '92, '94 & '96 Conf. Finals before that, that EXPERIENCE didn't help them at all, DID IT?


----------



## Snake (Jun 10, 2007)

On the point of experience being an important factor in playoff success, I'd just add that in the past 30 years no team has won a championship without at least making the conference semifinals the year before. Something to think about...


----------



## BullsAttitude (Jun 11, 2002)

Snake said:


> On the point of experience being an important factor in playoff success, I'd just add that in the past 30 years no team has won a championship without at least making the conference semifinals the year before. Something to think about...


I was getting ready to ask that he name me a team in NBA History that didn't have to go throug playoff failure seasons before breaking through.

2 teams in the 70's pulled it off, Portland in '77 and Golden State in '75 didn't make the playoffs the year before winning it all. Portland had Bill Walton and Golden State had Rick Barry. Yet, it was during the worst era of NBA history, during the drug days of the NBA. The year Portland won it all, Los Angelos had the best record in the NBA at 53-29.

Go through the majority of NBA Champions and they each had playoff failure before breaking through. He wants to believe teams with Superstars just get players put around them who know their roles, regardless of playoff experience, and that will lead to NBA titles.

Here are some examples of "Playoff Experience" coming through.

1. Game 7 2002 West. Conf. Finals, Lakers vs. Kings Game in the final minute, ball passed to Peja Stokavic (who is playing in his 1st ever WCFs) wide open in the corner and in his big playoff pressure moment, he .........................................................AIRBALLS!!!!

Go back to Game 4 of that same series, ball is tipped out to Robert Horry(owner of 4 NBA rings but he is no "QUALITY" vet, just an everyday normal scrub) and the chance of the Lakers tying this series or falling behind 3-1 falls in his hands, what happens? Nothing but the bottom of the net!!!!

2. Game 6 1993 NBA Finals, Bulls vs. Suns Game in the final moment, Suns own a 2 point lead, ball is passed over to Dan Majerle (who is playing in his 1st NBA Finals) with 2 seconds left on the shot clock, with the open shot he............AIRBALLS!!!!!

Next possesion, Jordan inbounds to Armstrong, back to Jordan, Jordan passes to Pippen, Barkley goes for the steal, Pippen cuts down the middle, sees Danny Ainge cutting over, dishes off to Horace Grant who is having a terrible game, he sees John Paxson open out at the 3 point line, kicks it out to him, Paxson (owner of 2 NBA rings, the player who helped finish off the Lakers in Game 5 of the '91 series, is no "QUALITY" vet, just an everyday normal scrub) has the chance to fulfill what every kid dreams of, launches a shot with perfect release and watches as it falls through to give the Bulls a one point lead and eventually their 3rd Straight Title.

3. Game 6 2003 West. Conf. Finals, Spurs vs. Mavericks Dallas (playing in their 1st Conf. Finals since the 80s) is playing well going into the 4th quarter, hoping to extend the series to a 7th game. The Spurs need a spark, they need some shots to fall. Off the bench comes Steve Kerr (owner of 4 NBA rings, has hit a shot to win a series, but is no "QUALITY" vet, just an everyday normal scrub) cold from not getting much playing time, but goes on to set Dallas a fire as he shoots the Spurs into the 2003 NBA Finals.

Yeah, "Playoff Experience" doesn't mean anything, does it?


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

johnston797 said:


> Why? Cassell was older in 2004 that those guys will be next year.


Cassell was older, yeah, but I think he was a better fit with KG than these guys are going to be. Time'll tell whether or not this opinion is correct.


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

King Joseus said:


> Cassell was older, yeah, but I think he was a better fit with KG than these guys are going to be. Time'll tell whether or not this opinion is correct.


Time will tell, but I can tell you now that it's generated alot of excitement.
I'm willing to say it will be a big money spinner too.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

darlets said:


> Time will tell, but I can tell you now that it's generated alot of excitement.
> *I'm willing to say it will be a big money spinner too.*


Oh, there's no doubt about that. Celtics Garnett jerseys'll be all over the place, and most fans'll be clamoring to get tickets to games against Boston too. Should be an interesting season...


----------

