# "Has Ainge made the Celtics better?"



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

> ​ Has Ainge made the Celtics better?​ February 5, 2006*
> 
> BOB RYAN*
> Speaking as a lapsed season ticket-holder who would pay serious cash to be time-capsuled back to February 1986, I have limited aims for the Celtics. I know we've already seen the best pro basketball any of us will ever be privileged to witness. So I'm prepared to wait for them to jell into a much more competitive unit. But were I a paying customer, I doubt I'd be so cavalier. This is an exasperating bunch, utterly unreliable, often tepid at home and usually docile on the road. Danny put this bunch together, and the results are not close to what they were last year, let alone when he got here. I wonder what Wyc and Steve _really _think?
> ...


----------



## KingHandles (Mar 19, 2005)

Battie
Walker
Williams
Pierce
Atkins [He was our starter right?]

or

LaFrentz
Al/Perkins
Wally
Pierce
West

I don't think he has done much to make us better...Give me back the team of 02-03 anytime...It's obvious Danny has no plans of success anytime soon...


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

ok lets see...hes taken a 45 win team that made it to the ecf and made it a 30 win team (hopefully) while wasting away the best yrs of our best player...and i dont wanna hear oo the east was weak in 02 blahblahblah....the team we have now wouldnt win 30 games in 02 either...he has definitely not made then better...lets wait 6 years and see if they can make the playoffs then


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

This is such lazy reporting it's a joke.

Yes 45 wins and the ECF is better than what we'll do this season. But 45 wins schmorty-five wins. Was that 02-03 45 win team really going any further? Was it going to compete for a banner - especaiily after they got killed by the Nets in that ECF - who then got destroyed in the finals?

Once again - the Celtics don't put division or conf banners in the rafters (like some other teams including the Nets).

That 45 win team had Pierce and Walker. After that is was some aging averege guys and crap youth. It needed a point guard and a center to get over the top. Who were we trading to get better right away? It was not going to happen. 

Now? Some fantastic youth with huge upside. 5 (I think) first round picks that either will be players in the future or used to make a trade. Kandi's expiring contract. Still have Pierce - by far the best player from the 45 win team.

SO if you want to be short-sighted yes - 45 wins is better than what will get this year. But who cares. That team was going no further. Anige is trying to build for higher things. THAT's what I think the Boston Celtics are about.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Funny how you leave this out of the article:



> *SHIRA SPRINGER*
> 
> Yes, theoretically, in what has become a non-results-oriented era for the Celtics. If you look past a rise and fall in wins (36 in his first season, to 45 last season, to a team on pace for 30-35 this season), then you see a team with a markedly improved outlook. *A potential future core of Al Jefferson, Kendrick Perkins, Paul Pierce, Wally Szczerbiak, and Delonte West is better than what greeted Ainge when he arrived. Remember starting point guard J.R. Bremer*? But Jefferson's recent injury shows just how uncertain the future can be.


 :clap:


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

KingHandles said:


> Battie
> I don't think he has done much to make us better...Give me back the team of 02-03 anytime...It's obvious Danny has no plans of success anytime soon...


you want that team back? Tony Delk, J.R. Bremer, Joseph Forte, Shammond Williams, Walter McCarty, Vin Baker, Bimbo Coles, Eric Williams, Tony Battie, Kedrick Brown, Grant Long, Bruno Sundov, Ruben Wolkowyski, Mark Bryant...

good luck. Those guys are really tearing it up in 05-06.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

Causeway said:


> you want that team back? Tony Delk, J.R. Bremer, Joseph Forte, Shammond Williams, Walter McCarty, Vin Baker, Bimbo Coles, Eric Williams, Tony Battie, Kedrick Brown, Grant Long, Bruno Sundov, Ruben Wolkowyski, Mark Bryant...
> 
> good luck. *Those guys are really tearing it up in 05-06.*



Yes, today's team is doing much better than those guys.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Causeway said:


> Funny how you leave this out of the article:


It is against basketballboards.net guidelines to post full articles due to copyright laws.

If Springer's quote was the first or even second on the page, it would've been posted.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Premier said:


> It is against basketballboards.net guidelines to post full articles due to copyright laws.
> 
> If Springer's quote was the first or even second on the page, it would've been posted.


understood. You still could have posted Springer's bright side to balance out the article without posting the full article.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Causeway said:


> understood. You still could have posted Springer's bright side to balance out the article without posting the full article.


Links to the article are embedded in the title of the post.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

causeway...i see where you are coming from that we have better talent now than before...but the downside of that is we are NOT going to sign all of them if they get as good as tyheir potential shows...we have so m uch friggin money tied up in pierce wally and raef that we will have nothing to sign any of our young guys with when they mature...and even if its after we get rid of raef and such how much money will we have to spread around for Al, perk, gerald, ta, greene, gomes delonte...etc...the good thing about havein "pierce walker and a bunch of bums" that won was you didnt have to pay the bums...now when it comes time to pay up we r probably not gonna see half of the guys we have stay in green...it would be impossible...so we r back to getting 1st round picks and keepin them for 3 yrs then buh-bye


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Premier said:


> Links to the article are embedded in the title of the post.


I know. That's how I got the Springer side. And either you get my point and are just being difficult - or you don't get it. By posting just what you posted it looked like the article with the title "Has Ainge made the Celtics better?" was only a negative against what Ainge has done. Just like if you only posted Springers side.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> causeway...i see where you are coming from that we have better talent now than before...but the downside of that is we are NOT going to sign all of them if they get as good as tyheir potential shows...we have so m uch friggin money tied up in pierce wally and raef that we will have nothing to sign any of our young guys with when they mature...and even if its after we get rid of raef and such how much money will we have to spread around for Al, perk, gerald, ta, greene, gomes delonte...etc...the good thing about havein "pierce walker and a bunch of bums" that won was you didnt have to pay the bums...now when it comes time to pay up we r probably not gonna see half of the guys we have stay in green...it would be impossible...so we r back to getting 1st round picks and keepin them for 3 yrs then buh-bye


Having the "problem" of "how much money will we have to spread around for Al, perk, gerald, ta, greene, gomes delonte" is much better IMO than the problem of as you say "pierce walker and a bunch of bums". I'll take it. It's an improvement and that was the question of the article. I hear you - but let's let Ainge figure out how to make it work. He got the talent here. Hopefully he has a plan to keep them and make it work.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

No he hasn't.

WTF is he doing? Are you rebuilding? If so why trade for a player at the peak of his prime with a big contract playing the same position as your best player? Why do you have a coach that absolutely hates playing kids? 


It is like you have two seperate rosters: 27 and up (Pierce, Wally, Raef, Dickau, Kandi and Scalibrine) and the 24 and under (Jefferson, Allen, West, Green, Gomes, Greene, Perkins, and Jones). This is why I thought he would have been better served trading Paul instead of Ricky Davis. Gerald Green is going to have to be really special for this to work out.


----------



## Richie Rich (May 23, 2003)

The East was also much weaker in 02-03, noone mentions that...


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

Richie Rich said:


> The East was also much weaker in 02-03, noone mentions that...


It's mighty now? Besides three teams, there's no honorable mentions.


----------



## Richie Rich (May 23, 2003)

aquaitious said:


> It's mighty now? Besides three teams, there's no honorable mentions.


Did I say it was mighty? No...I said it was BETTER NOW...Read before you respond.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

Richie Rich said:


> Did I say it was mighty? No...I said it was BETTER NOW...Read before you respond.


If anything you said it was stronger, but apart from three teams, there's nothing strong about it.


----------



## JayRedd (Jan 2, 2006)

As it stands now, Boston is obviously a worse team on the court than it was in 02/03. But, that team wasn't getting past the 2nd Round ever again anyway, so I agree that it was time to "blow it up" and try something else. This youth movement is very promising...but to truly gauge whether or not Ainge has really turned the franchise around, we'll hafta wait to see who he decides to resign and how well he can manage the salary cap in the future. Because so far (trading for Raef's contract, overpaying Blount then taking on Wally's bad contract to counteract it, giving Scalabrine a 5-yr deal, etc.), he hasn't done much good in terms of getting "value" players.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

JayRedd said:


> he hasn't done much good in terms of getting "value" players.


Al Jefferson.
Perks.
Gomes.
Greene.
West.
Allen.
Green.

Those are not "value" players?

5 #1's. No value in that?


----------



## KingHandles (Mar 19, 2005)

Causeway said:


> Al Jefferson.
> Perks.
> Gomes.
> Greene.
> ...


What happens if Al is the next current Grant Hill? Then 3/6 of the other players are flunkies? I'm just saying, they may have current value, but they all have a risk factor. Building a franchise on a bunch of risks is not something I would do.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

KingHandles said:


> What happens if Al is the next current Grant Hill? Then 3/6 of the other players are flunkies? I'm just saying, they may have current value, but they all have a risk factor. Building a franchise on a bunch of risks is not something I would do.


What happens if they are all allstars? Who knows?

tell me - based on the roster Danny inherited...what else could he have done? No one was taking our junk for proven solid players/stars. The only option was to trade for picks and draft well. He did that. Is that a guarantee? No. But nothing is. Danny made the best of a not so good situation.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

He "made the best of a not so good situation?"

...you know this how? Ainge could've made better moves. That's pretty hard to argue.

I don't know what his plan is though. With his latest trade, one cannot spectalate whether he is rebuilding or not.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

The situation was Paul and 'Toine and junk. That's pretty hard to argue.

The way to make the most from that was to trade the junk for picks - and draft well. He did that.

That's how I know.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> With his latest trade, one cannot spectalate whether he is rebuilding or not.


Yeah. I was fully behind Ainge until the S deal. Now I'm a little wary.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Causeway said:


> The situation was Paul and 'Toine and junk. That's pretty hard to argue.


Did he make the *best* of the situation? If so, how do you know that?

Does that mean *all* of his decisions were right for the team?


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

Causeway said:


> The situation was Paul and 'Toine and junk. That's pretty hard to argue.
> 
> The way to make the most from that was to trade the junk for picks - and draft well. He did that.
> 
> That's how I know.




yes hes drafted well...but as ive stated before look at the situation with the clippers...for YEARS they had top-3 or 4 overall picks (approx)...they ended up with kandi (the next duncan) odom (the next magic) darius miles (the next KG) etc etc....at the time all of those picks looked like no-miss options...and they didnt start winning till they canned the draft theory and signed brand mobley cassel etc...if they cant win with TOP 3 picks...whose to say that our mid-late round 1st rounder AND 2nd rounder will amount to anything at all???...yea it seems like he drafted well but i do not trust draft picks


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Premier said:


> Did he make the *best* of the situation? If so, how do you know that?


see above.



Premier said:


> Does that mean *all* of his decisions were right for the team?


*all*? no. nobody bats 1000 though. He's made some mistakes. But all in all based on what he started with I feel he has so far made the best of it. Can we go over every move he's made and find faults? Sure. But on the whole we are in much better shape then when he got here.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

The reason people don't think he's done anything is because the plans are wrapped up in youth. But he has found some gems, he got West with the 24th pick, he's a future star, Big Al at #15, He acquired Perk from the Grizz, for these reasons i'm not joining AW's 'suck my dick Ainge' club or whatever it says. Nothing personal AW :biggrin:


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

TheBigDonut said:


> The reason people don't think he's done anything is because the plans are wrapped up in youth. But he has found some gems, he got West with the 24th pick, he's a future star, Big Al at #15, He acquired Perk from the Grizz, for these reasons i'm not joining AW's 'suck my dick Ainge' club or whatever it says. Nothing personal AW :biggrin:




hahaha no offense taken...but again see my previous post and see what i think of future "gems" in the draft


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> yes hes drafted well...but as ive stated before look at the situation with the clippers...for YEARS they had top-3 or 4 overall picks (approx)...they ended up with kandi (the next duncan) odom (the next magic) darius miles (the next KG) etc etc....at the time all of those picks looked like no-miss options...and they didnt start winning till they canned the draft theory and signed brand mobley cassel etc...if they cant win with TOP 3 picks...whose to say that our mid-late round 1st rounder AND 2nd rounder will amount to anything at all???...yea it seems like he drafted well but i do not trust draft picks


but he had to work with what he was given. No was was trading us good/great players for our junk. So he traded mainly for picks. Ainge will not keep all the youth and all the picks. There will be a move that will include youth/picks for a player(s).


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> yes hes drafted well...but as ive stated before look at the situation with the clippers...for YEARS they had top-3 or 4 overall picks (approx)...they ended up with kandi (the next duncan) odom (the next magic) darius miles (the next KG) etc etc....at the time all of those picks looked like no-miss options...and they didnt start winning till they canned the draft theory and signed brand mobley cassel etc...if they cant win with TOP 3 picks...whose to say that our mid-late round 1st rounder AND 2nd rounder will amount to anything at all???...yea it seems like he drafted well but i do not trust draft picks


Maybe their Gm is a moron.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Causeway said:


> see above.


I think you need to look the definition of "the best" which would imply perfection, something Ainge has hardly accomplished especially considering his lack of a definite plan and his failure to produce a championship-worthy team as promised per his five year plan. He's a decent general manager (director of basketball operations, if you will) but he been far from perfect. We may be in better shape (I'm not one to argue against that) but I'm not sold on what he's done to write him off as even a good general manager.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Premier said:


> Causeway said:
> 
> 
> > see above.[/quote'
> ...


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Premier said:


> Causeway said:
> 
> 
> > see above.[/quote'
> ...


----------



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

TheBigDonut said:


> He acquired Perk from the Grizz


He didn't "acquire Perk from the Grizz". NBA rules forbid the trading of first round picks in consecutive drafts (the Ted Stepien rule), and the Celtics had traded their 2002 first to Phoenix as part of the Delk/Rogers deal. This meant that Boston could not trade their 2003 first until _after_ the selection was made. The Grizzlies had two picks, and for whatever reason, West decided he wanted Troy Bell and Dahntay Jones. He didn't believe that he could lock them both up drafting 13 & 27. Similarly Boston was not of the opinion that they would be able to get Marcus Banks at 18. So Ainge and West swapped first round picks, but because of the rules the trade could not be formally consummated until all the players had been drafted, but the trade was announced before Banks was selected.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

those guys did **** us over pretty good :curse:


----------



## JayRedd (Jan 2, 2006)

Causeway said:


> Al Jefferson.
> Perks.
> Gomes.
> Greene.
> ...


He has drafted very well...Al Jeff, Tony Allen, Delonte and Gomes were all shrewd picks. In fairness, Gerald Green was a given after he fell that far. So I'm not giving Danny a lot of credit on that...And seeing as how he's in the D League right now, Green is still not a GM accomplishment yet, although most consider him a lock to be a star in 3-4 years.

But my original point was just this...it's great that he's drafted well and has some young blue chippers to either trade or re-sign and build a future around. But since they're all so young and on 3 year rookie contracts, it'll matter more who he re-signs to what dollar ammount/gives extensions to and who he trades away/lets walk that will determine how good of a GM he is.

For instance, if he re-ups on Al Jeff, Perkins, Gerald Green and gets rid of Delonte, Allen and Greene, and Perkins and Green are busts, then Ainge hasn't "made the Celtics better." If all three become starters for the next 5 years, then he has made them better. And fortunately, this will have more to do with his strong suit--valuing young talent--than his weakness--understanding the salary cap.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

ehmunro said:


> He didn't "acquire Perk from the Grizz". NBA rules forbid the trading of first round picks in consecutive drafts (the Ted Stepien rule), and the Celtics had traded their 2002 first to Phoenix as part of the Delk/Rogers deal. This meant that Boston could not trade their 2003 first until _after_ the selection was made. The Grizzlies had two picks, and for whatever reason, West decided he wanted Troy Bell and Dahntay Jones. He didn't believe that he could lock them both up drafting 13 & 27. Similarly Boston was not of the opinion that they would be able to get Marcus Banks at 18. So Ainge and West swapped first round picks, but because of the rules the trade could not be formally consummated until all the players had been drafted, but the trade was announced before Banks was selected.


gotcha :biggrin:


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

JayRedd said:


> He has drafted very well...Al Jeff, Tony Allen, Delonte and Gomes were all shrewd picks. In fairness, Gerald Green was a given after he fell that far. So I'm not giving Danny a lot of credit on that...And seeing as how he's in the D League right now, Green is still not a GM accomplishment yet, although most consider him a lock to be a star in 3-4 years.
> 
> But my original point was just this...it's great that he's drafted well and has some young blue chippers to either trade or re-sign and build a future around. But since they're all so young and on 3 year rookie contracts, it'll matter more who he re-signs to what dollar ammount/gives extensions to and who he trades away/lets walk that will determine how good of a GM he is.
> 
> For instance, if he re-ups on Al Jeff, Perkins, Gerald Green and gets rid of Delonte, Allen and Greene, and Perkins and Green are busts, then Ainge hasn't "made the Celtics better." If all three become starters for the next 5 years, then he has made them better. And fortunately, this will have more to do with his strong suit--valuing young talent--than his weakness--understanding the salary cap.


I hear you. I see it - in a simplistic way - as a 2 phase project.

Phase one: knock down and burn the rotting house. Use what you have and re-build a foundation.

Phase two: build the house. Hopefully keep the new good parts. Trade players and picks for more proven players. 

We are no longer "re-building". We are building.

:biggrin:


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

How does the Wally Szczerbiak trade indicate that we're "building" in some sort of youth movement?


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

he said we are building...not re-building...but im still with u i think ainge made a panic move with the davis wally deal and so far it hasnt worked out at all


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Premier said:


> How does the Wally Szczerbiak trade indicate that we're "building" in some sort of youth movement?


I did not say ""building" in some sort of youth movement". I said Phase I was to knock down and lay the foundation and Phase II we build.

The MINN trade served 2 purposes. One was to get rid of the final piece of the rotting team Danny inherited - Mark Blount. The other part was to get another pick to use either as trade bait or to get a player. 

Wally for Ricky is basically a push. Plus we got the expiring contract in Kandi. Another asset.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Premier said:


> I think you need to look the definition of "the best" which would imply perfection,


really? would you say the Steelers are the Superbowl Champions and therefore The Best team in the NFL? Yes. Would you say they were "perfect" this season and last night? Nope. 

I think you need to look up the word.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

> The MINN trade served 2 purposes. One was to get rid of the final piece of the rotting team Danny inherited - Mark Blount. The other part was to get another pick to use either as trade bait or to get a player.


Ainge could've done this before re-signing him.



> Wally for Ricky is basically a push. Plus we got the expiring contract in Kandi. Another asset.


You're kidding right? Wally's contract puts us right near the luxury tax limit which the owners will not cross. This trade limits are trade flexibility *and* we acquire a bad contract. Blount and Ricky's contracts is better than Olowokandi and Ricky's contracts.


----------



## JayRedd (Jan 2, 2006)

Causeway said:


> I did not say ""building" in some sort of youth movement". I said Phase I was to knock down and lay the foundation and Phase II we build.
> 
> The MINN trade served 2 purposes. One was to get rid of the final piece of the rotting team Danny inherited - Mark Blount. The other part was to get another pick to use either as trade bait or to get a player.
> 
> Wally for Ricky is basically a push. Plus we got the expiring contract in Kandi. Another asset.


It was Ainge that signed Blount to that deal was it not? So you can't say he inherited that bad contract. He created it. And if Ricky for Wally is a push in talent (which I agree with), why would you want to take the one that makes nearly twice as much as the other? Especially when the twice-as-much guy is signed for an extra year? Yes you get rid of Blounts overpriced deal, but you also take on another long-term, less-flexible, overpriced deal for a 29-year-old Szcerzbiak. Blount is/was an albatross, but it's easier to trade away a $7 mil albatros that plays an always-in-demand position (center) than it is to get rid of an aging $12-13 Tier-3 NBA player who plays a dime-a-dozen position.

I'm just guessing Ainge is confident he'll be able to trade away the last year ('08-'09, $13 mil) of Wally's contract to someone who is trying to get under the cap. But if he can't, it makes a bad trade worse in my opinion and could be the difference in being able to re-sign one of Jefferson, Allen and West, who will all be up for free agency the same year Wally is going into his final, $13 mil year.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

Causeway said:


> really? would you say the Steelers are the Superbowl Champions and therefore The Best team in the NFL? *Yes.* Would you say they were "perfect" this season and last night? Nope.
> 
> I think you need to look up the word.



hell no...if they played the patriots we all know what would have happened :biggrin:


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> It was Ainge that signed Blount to that deal was it not?


Right, but you can't fault him there. Blount had a very good '03-'04 and was a legit double-double threat every game. Didn't he shoot like 55% that year? Our frontline was thin as is - suffice it so say most GM's, with a guy coming off a season like Blount did, would've signed him for that money.



> And if Ricky for Wally is a push in talent (which I agree with), why would you want to take the one that makes nearly twice as much as the other?


Because you get rid of the #1 TOP48 guy in the NBA, locker room cancer, and generally detrimental player, for an expiring contract for a guy who scores 20ppg and is one of the best shooters in the NBA. Blount's value was just decreasing at an alarming rate by the day, anyways. Didn't the C's actually save money on this? Not to mention, Ricky will be up for a max contract in a few years here anyway.



> Yes you get rid of Blounts overpriced deal, but you also take on another long-term, less-flexible, overpriced deal for a 29-year-old Szcerzbiak.


The way he has played this year, Wally is overpaid by maybe 2 million dollars, tops. Chump change. How many 20ppg scorers in the NBA make less than 8mill (besides Davis, roffle.)



> Blount is/was an albatross, but it's easier to trade away a $7 mil albatros that plays an always-in-demand position (center) than it is to get rid of an aging $12-13 Tier-3 NBA player who plays a dime-a-dozen position.


1) Blount's trade kicker makes it so he is due like, 9 mill from Minnesota now. If you think it was easy to trade him, well...

2) The Celtics aren't planning on trading Szczerbiak, so this point is moot.



> I'm just guessing Ainge is confident he'll be able to trade away the last year ('08-'09, $13 mil) of Wally's contract to someone who is trying to get under the cap. But if he can't, it makes a bad trade worse in my opinion and could be the difference in being able to re-sign one of Jefferson, Allen and West, who will all be up for free agency the same year Wally is going into his final, $13 mil year.


Doesn't matter. We have their Bird rights and can go over the cap to sign them, if I'm not mistaken. And you can always get rid of a 13 mill expirer. Especially when that expirer will probably be playing 17+ppg basketball. You telling me a contender wouldn't want a 13 mill expirer who can still play?


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

:clap: P-DUB! Post of the year


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Premier said:


> Ainge could've done this before re-signing him.
> 
> 
> You're kidding right? Wally's contract puts us right near the luxury tax limit which the owners will not cross. This trade limits are trade flexibility *and* we acquire a bad contract. Blount and Ricky's contracts is better than Olowokandi and Ricky's contracts.


Wrong. Not kidding.

See P-Dubs post on both of these. I can't say it better than he already did.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

P-Dub34 said:


> Right, but you can't fault him there. Blount had a very good '03-'04 and was a legit double-double threat every game. Didn't he shoot like 55% that year? Our frontline was thin as is - suffice it so say most GM's, with a guy coming off a season like Blount did, would've signed him for that money.
> 
> 
> Because you get rid of the #1 TOP48 guy in the NBA, locker room cancer, and generally detrimental player, for an expiring contract for a guy who scores 20ppg and is one of the best shooters in the NBA. Blount's value was just decreasing at an alarming rate by the day, anyways. Didn't the C's actually save money on this? Not to mention, Ricky will be up for a max contract in a few years here anyway.
> ...


Blount will only be due 9 million in his final year, until then he's paid 6-8 million each. Wally on the other hand also has a trade kicker, which makes his final year of his contract worth 14.3 million.

The Celtics will not be going deep over the limit (which they must do), and if they clear the 14 million "expirer" we must expect to get another one of those contracts back, probably longer than Wally's deal, if it's the same length and money, then there's no point in making the trade.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

Also, in two years we'll be at about 42 million, without a resigned Pierce and Perkins (if Pierce does take his option, we'll be at 58 million, at the luxury tax almost). Not to mention the 1st round picks...


----------



## persian pride (Mar 1, 2005)

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> he said we are building...not re-building...but im still with u i think ainge made a panic move with the davis wally deal and so far it hasnt worked out at all


LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL at your signature...........Are you kidding about A. walker or are serious?!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL at your signature...........Are you kidding about A. walker or are serious?!!!!!!!!!!!!


Well, now you've done it.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

persian pride said:


> LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL at your signature...........Are you kidding about A. walker or are serious?!!!!!!!!!!!!




uh oh u done did it now...which part may i ask are you reffering to just so i can be clear???


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> Wally on the other hand also has a trade kicker, which makes his final year of his contract worth 14.3 million.


An even bigger expirer. How is that a negative?



> and if they clear the 14 million "expirer" we must expect to get another one of those contracts back,


You must know something I don't. Is an "expirer" the same thing as a regular expirer, or what? Because I generally call contracts that end that year expirers. Dunno about you though.

As I said before, Slick would be up for a max contract soon, too.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

P-Dub34 said:


> An even bigger expirer. How is that a negative?


What will you trade it for? Another expiring? Another Raef contract?



P-Dub34 said:


> You must know something I don't. Is an "expirer" the same thing as a regular expirer, or what? Because I generally call contracts that end that year expirers. Dunno about you though.
> 
> As I said before, Slick would be up for a max contract soon, too.


A lot of people are due for a pay day soon, it doesn't mean they're traded becasue teams are scared to pay them.


If we were not to keep him, we hould have traded him with Raef.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> What will you trade it for? Another expiring? Another Raef contract?


If DA is that insistent on getting rid of him, he could possibly be traded for another expirer, a bad contract + picks or a bad contract + youth talent. Or you could let him expire.


----------



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

P-Dub34 said:


> Because you get rid of the #1 TOP48 guy in the NBA, locker room cancer, and generally detrimental player


Except that Szczerbiak was the most hated player in the Minnesota locker room, which indicates that Wally is pretty much a tumor himself.




P-Dub34 said:


> for *an injury prone 29 year old player that is scoring 20ppg for the first time in his career and is one of the worst under-pressure players in the NBA.*


Corrected.




P-Dub34 said:


> The way he has played this year, Wally is overpaid by maybe 2 million dollars, tops. Chump change. How many 20ppg scorers in the NBA make less than 8mill (besides Davis, roffle.)


How many 29 year old 6'7" spot shooters that are career 15 p/g and playoff chokers get paid $12 million/year? He's grossly overpaid.




P-Dub34 said:


> 1) Blount's trade kicker makes it so he is due like, 9 mill from Minnesota now.


A trade kicker is a one time payment based on the remaining monies due on the contract. Szczerbiak's trade-kicker was a wash with Blount's



P-Dub34 said:


> 2) The Celtics aren't planning on trading Szczerbiak, so this point is moot.


That's the problem. 




P-Dub34 said:


> Doesn't matter. We have their Bird rights and can go over the cap to sign them, if I'm not mistaken. And you can always get rid of a 13 mill expirer. Especially when that expirer will probably be playing 17+ppg basketball. You telling me a contender wouldn't want a 13 mill expirer who can still play?


Wally will not be scoring 17 p/g at the age 34. And the Celtics will have to go _deep_ into luxury tax land to re-sign Perkins, West, & Jefferson unless they unload Pierce for an expiring deal. That's the real problem with this trade, it seals Pierce's trade out of town.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> Except that Szczerbiak was the most hated player in the Minnesota locker room, which indicates that Wally is pretty much a tumor himself.


Actually, his behavior has been straightened out this year and called Garnett "the best teammate in the NBA." Not to mention he's done nothing but good in the Celtics locker room so far.



> Corrected.


I appreciate the attempt, but my original statement stands, and it's still true.



> How many 29 year old 6'7" spot shooters that are career 15 p/g and playoff chokers get paid $12 million/year? He's grossly overpaid.


Compared to NBA market value and his play this year, he is not "grossly" overpaid. Overpaid, but not by a whole lot, considering his play this year. What he's earning this year has no bearing on a) his career ppg or b) his playoff struggles, because the C's aren't getting there anyways. Furthermore, S has been good in crunch time this year for the Wolves.



> That's the problem.


I never said that wasn't.



> Wally will not be scoring 17 p/g at the age 34.


Yuck, is that when his contract ends? 



> And the Celtics will have to go deep into luxury tax land to re-sign Perkins, West, & Jefferson unless they unload Pierce for an expiring deal. That's the real problem with this trade, it seals Pierce's trade out of town.


Why on earth would Ainge trade for Szczerbiak if he's planning on trading P away? That's stupid.

As I've said before, just gotta make the best of this situation. Everything you're saying is harping on Wally's past.

You take issues with his attitude - but since coming to Boston has received nothing but rave reviews from coaches and players alike.

You say he's grossly overpaid as a career 15ppg scorer and and choker - but neglect to mention his career year and the fact that he's made some big plays in the clutch for the Wolves this year.

What's the going rate for a 20ppg scorer in the NBA, by the way? By his play this year, he's overpaid by 2-3mill, tops.

Oh, and by the way, I've never been an advocate of this trade. I called it "atrocious" when it went down. But instead of crying in the breastmilk like some people, I'm moving on. Just trying to shed some light on why this deal went down.


----------



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

P-Dub34 said:


> Actually, his behavior has been straightened out this year and called Garnett "the best teammate in the NBA." Not to mention he's done nothing but good in the Celtics locker room so far.


Put me on the skeptical list about Wally's "reform".




P-Dub34 said:


> I appreciate the attempt, but my original statement stands, and it's still true.


No, it's not. Szczerbiak has never averaged 20 p/g for a season and might not do it this year. He's a career 16-18 guy, and only got his 90% max deal because of his skin colour. How many African-American 16 p/g jump-shooting 3s get 6 year $66 million contracts? About the only one I can think of is Tayshaun Prince (though his offensive game is different than Wally's, obviously), and he got that this year (after a couple of years of NBA style wage inflation). Prince is also a much better two way player than Szczerbiak.




P-Dub34 said:


> Compared to NBA market value and his play this year, he is not "grossly" overpaid. Overpaid, but not by a whole lot, considering his play this year. What he's earning this year has no bearing on a) his career ppg or b) his playoff struggles, because the C's aren't getting there anyways. Furthermore, S has been good in crunch time this year for the Wolves.


I see, so we should assume that career years by 29 year old players are indicative of future performance? Can we then officially nickname him "White Blount"? :bsmile:




P-Dub34 said:


> Why on earth would Ainge trade for Szczerbiak if he's planning on trading P away? That's stupid.


I outlined the problem in the trade thread, because of Szczerbiak & Lafrentz's bloated contracts the Celtics are going to have to either move Paul Pierce or go $20-$25 million over the luxury tax line in 2008-09 to keep this roster together. I can't see the ownership writing that check. One of the max/near max deals will have to be unloaded before then. No one will be trading for Wallyworld or Raef prior to February 2009, guess who that leaves?


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

ehmunro said:


> No one will be trading for Wallyworld or Raef prior to February 2009, guess who that leaves?





yea...what he said


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> Put me on the skeptical list about Wally's "reform".


OK, that's your choice, but I was just pointing out that it's unfair to ignore what he's done this year.



> No, it's not. Szczerbiak has never averaged 20 p/g for a season and might not do it this year.


Okay, we'll see what he ends up with this year. 



> He's a career 16-18 guy, and only got his 90% max deal because of his skin colour. How many African-American 16 p/g jump-shooting 3s get 6 year $66 million contracts?


I never said Wally deserved the deal when he got it. Far from it. But the way he was playing (pre-trade), he wasn't "grossly" overpaid at 10mill per year.



> I see, so we should assume that career years by 29 year old players are indicative of future performance? Can we then officially nickname him "White Blount"?


Sorry, I never said anything about his future play. He wasn't worth the contract he signed then and will never be, but the only point I'm making is that his play this year is such that he would get something like 8-9mill, quite possibly more, in today's NBA, if we were going on this year.


----------



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

P-Dub34 said:


> OK, that's your choice, but I was just pointing out that it's unfair to ignore what he's done this year.


I'm not ignoring it, just noting that Garnett hasn't yet put a stop to the party he threw when Szczerbiak was traded. Making me wonder if the character reform is anything but a creation of the Timberwolves' PR department. To me it sounds suspiciously like a lot of perfume being slapped on a pig to make it salable. 




P-Dub34 said:


> I never said Wally deserved the deal when he got it. Far from it. But the way he was playing (pre-trade), he wasn't "grossly" overpaid at 10mill per year.


He gets about 50% more than players with his skill and ability, that defines "grossly overpaid" in my book.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> just noting that Garnett hasn't yet put a stop to the party he threw when Szczerbiak was traded.


Please elaborate.



> Making me wonder if the character reform is anything but a creation of the Timberwolves' PR department.


Maybe. Is his behavior a part of the Celtics' PR department, now? 



> It wasn't always smooth between you and Kevin Garnett, but the two of you seem to have a good chemistry now. Could you talk about that?
> 
> WS: We have great chemistry. We have come a long way and been through a lot of ups and downs. It's our seventh year together in this league. He knows what I'm all about, I know what he is all about. There is no better teammate to play with.


http://www.hoopshype.com/interviews/szczerbiak_narducci.htm

Maybe he was fulla ****, maybe not. Interesting read though. Plus he's said and done all the right things since coming to Boston. I was skeptical about Slick, and he had more issues than S.



> He gets about 50% more than players with his skill and ability, that defines "grossly overpaid" in my book.


Name some 20 (okay, 19)ppg scorers and what they're getting paid this year. And don't bring up the past, because we're talking about what he's making this year for his performance. You don't sign 20ppg scorers for the MLE, which is what you're saying he should be getting, right?


----------



## JayRedd (Jan 2, 2006)

P-Dub34 said:


> Name some 20 (okay, 19)ppg scorers and what they're getting paid this year. And don't bring up the past, because we're talking about what he's making this year for his performance. You don't sign 20ppg scorers for the MLE, which is what you're saying he should be getting, right?


Ricky Davis - $5.9 mil
Al Harrington - $6.9 mil
Corey Maggette - $6.7 mil
Ron Artest - $6.5 mil

But to be fair, Maggette has new injury risks, Harrington is in his walk-year and Artest is, well, Ron Artest. So along with Davis, I'd say these are the four biggest "bargains" in the league as far as points per dollar go, even with the problems they all bring to the table.

So, what I wonder, is why if you've already got a 19 ppg scorer in Davis, why do you trade for another one for twice the money? Just to dump Blount? Sure Blount's overpaid, but when you look around the league at the going rate for other marginal starting centers (Jeff Foster-$38/4 years; Dampier-$58/6 years; Foyle-$34/4; Ratliff-$35/3 years) across the league, Blount's contract isn't really as overpriced as it is too long.

(And for the record, I don't really think either Davis or Wally are legit 20ppg scorers in this league...It's just that they are on teams that seriously lack offensive talent and have, thus, been taking way more shots than they should with 17/game for Davis and 15/game for Wally. On a good playoff team, with real offensive threats, no way either one of these guys is a number two option or taking more than 11-12 per night.)


----------



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

P-Dub 34 said:


> Name some 20 (okay, 19)ppg scorers and what they're getting paid this year. And don't bring up the past, because we're talking about what he's making this year for his performance. You don't sign 20ppg scorers for the MLE, which is what you're saying he should be getting, right?


50% more than players of his skill and ability (my actual words) is another way of saying that he makes 150% of his market value. Another way of expressing 150% would be 3/2, therefore, when I say that Wally is making 50% over market value, I am saying that players of his skill and ability make 2/3 of what Wallyworld gets. Wallyworld makes an average of $11.7 million now ($41 million over the next three and a half years), meaning that I'm setting the market value on players of Wally's skill and ability at about $7.8 million. Guess how much Peja Stojakovic makes? :bsmile:

Yes, teams don't blindly hand out 6/66 deals to anyone that once averages 20 p/g. Other factors (age, injury history, position, complete and utter inability to deliver in the postseason) come into play. If Wally were a free agent this offseason he wouldn't get anything close to what he's making now, because aging 6'7" jumpshooters just aren't that valuable.



P-Dub 34 said:


> Maybe. Is his behavior a part of the Celtics' PR department, now?


Is Mark Blount the most hated player in the T'wolves clubhouse yet? Doubtful. It takes time for cancer to spread. Same goes here. Szczerbiak's campaigning for a spot on Team USA is pretty irrelevant. I can see why Wally'd be thrilled with the trade, because by the time his Boston teammates want to strangle him and toss his corpse in a dumpster he'll already have that spot locked up.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> meaning that I'm setting the market value on players of Wally's skill and ability at about $7.8 million


OK, so he's overpaid by the 2-3, (closer to 4, actually) million that I said. Say Wally's making 8 mill a year. What good would that other four mill do the C's? By the time S is making 13mill he agreeably will be grossly overpaid.



> If Wally were a free agent this offseason he wouldn't get anything close to what he's making now


You're unequivocally correct. 



> Szczerbiak's campaigning for a spot on Team USA is pretty irrelevant.


The part I cited _was_ relevant to his behavior. I posted the link so you wouldn't think I was making this stuff up.



> I can see why Wally'd be thrilled with the trade, because by the time his Boston teammates want to strangle him and toss his corpse in a dumpster he'll already have that spot locked up.


Well, we'll just have to wait and see if that actually happens. The same could've been said about Ricky Davis when we first acquired him.


----------



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

P-Dub34 said:


> OK, so he's overpaid by the 2-3, (closer to 4, actually) million that I said. Say Wally's making 8 mill a year. What good would that other four mill do the C's? By the time S is making 13mill he agreeably will be grossly overpaid.


Only because he's white, though. Corey Maggette (before the career threatening injury risks) got six years and $45 million on the open market when Wally got his six and 66. If Wally were African-American he'd be looking at Ricky Davis money.




P-Dub34 said:


> The part I cited _was_ relevant to his behavior. I posted the link so you wouldn't think I was making this stuff up.


_You're_ not the one making things up. 




P-Dub34 said:


> Well, we'll just have to wait and see if that actually happens. The same could've been said about Ricky Davis when we first acquired him.


Nah, Ricky's always been popular with his teammates, it's his coaches that have wanted to eviscerate him and hang his entrails in the clubhouse.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

P-Dub34 said:


> What good would that other four mill do the C's?


The Celtics would have more cap flexibility. The Celtics would be farther away from the dreaded luxury tax. The Celtics would be able to trade Wally (assuming his contract was less and disregarding the invalidness of the trade if the Celtics recieved four million less than what they traded) much easier. The Celtics would have more money to spend on the contract extensions of their good young players...


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Allan Houston: overpaid and not white.
Mark Blount: overpaid and not white.
Brian Grant: overpaid and not white.
Penny: overpaid and not white.
Jalen Rose: overpaid and not white.
Tim Thomas: overpaid and not white.

and on and on and on...


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

ehmunro never stated that non-white (Caucasian, if you will) cannot be overpaid.

...I'll add that I do understand your point though.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

...



Premier said:


> ehmunro never stated that non-white (Caucasian, if you will) cannot be overpaid.
> 
> ...I'll add that I do understand you're point though.





P-Dub34 said:


> OK, so he's overpaid by the 2-3, (closer to 4, actually) million that I said. Say Wally's making 8 mill a year.





ehmunro said:


> *Only because he's white, though*. Corey Maggette (before the career threatening injury risks) got six years and $45 million on the open market when Wally got his six and 66. *If Wally were African-American he'd be looking at Ricky Davis money*.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

My post still stands. Read it carefully. I chose my words with scrutiny.

He stated that a player of Szczerbiak's talent is paid less than what Wally recieved due to skin colour (which I don't agree with).

This argument is frivolous. Why bother?


----------



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

Premier said:


> ehmunro never stated that non-white (Caucasian, if you will) cannot be overpaid.
> 
> ...I'll add that I do understand you're point though.


I suppose I should unblock the prat to see what he had to say (he probably thinks a "character guy" like Wally is underpaid). But, again, at the same time Wally got his bloated contract a _better_ player, that played the same position, got approximately 50% less money on the open market. In fact, Maggette was arguably more valuable because he could guard NBA 2s. You can't cite injury history as the difference because Wallyworld's was every bit as extensive at the time (the knee injury in college, nagging injuries his rookie year and an injury shortened free agent campaign). So what was the magic difference that made Wally worth six and 66? Was it his world renowned defense? His great slashing game? His ability to come up huge in the postseason? What? How many injury prone 17 p/g scorers with games as limited as Szczerbiak's was got that sort of money?


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> So what was the magic difference that made Wally worth six and 66?


Maybe the Wolves thought he'd be better than a guy like Maggette in the future. Who knows? A multitude of reasons could be behind it.

Thread edited, it now displays the 6th page....bump -aqua


----------



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

P-Dub 34 said:


> Maybe the Wolves thought he'd be better than a guy like Maggette in the future. Who knows? A multitude of reasons could be behind it.


Maybe Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny gave the T'wolves the benefits of their psychic powers? :bsmile:

And he's no longer a 20 p/g scorer. Without Garnett to make the doubleteam impossible, he's scoring much less with much less efficiency.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Premier said:


> My post still stands. Read it carefully. I chose my words with scrutiny.
> 
> He stated that a player of Szczerbiak's talent is paid less than what Wally recieved due to skin colour (which I don't agree with).
> 
> This argument is frivolous. Why bother?


My post still stands. You said "ehmunro never stated that non-white (Caucasian, if you will) cannot be overpaid." However I never stated em said "that non-white (Caucasian, if you will) cannot be overpaid". Read my and his post carefully. You are putting words in my mouth.

What he DID say was Wally only got paid highly was because he's white and "If Wally were African-American he'd be looking at Ricky Davis money."

So did Rose get Wally money? 

I then listed some non-white players who are over-paid. Did they also get their money because they were _not _ white?

The point where you are correct Prem is where you state this argument is frivolous. Just as it's silly to state that Wally only got his contract because he's white.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> Maybe Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny gave the T'wolves the benefits of their psychic powers?


I'm just saying, there is no way say for certain why he got the contract he did - we can speculate, and draw our own inferences, but nothing concrete.



> And he's no longer a 20 p/g scorer. Without Garnett to make the doubleteam impossible, he's scoring much less with much less efficiency.


Agreed, he's been bad since coming to Boston. It could be due to injury, though, as the first few games as a C he was playing well.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Maybe he has a better agent


----------



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

P-Dub34 said:


> Agreed, he's been bad since coming to Boston. It could be due to injury, though, as the first few games as a C he was playing well.


He's just a bad fit for the roster the Celtics have. Szczerbiak has always needed complex plays run for him because he can't create for himself. Ainge is gambling that West will be able to do that, thus far the experiment's a failure. Shot creation isn't West's game. Now the Celtics will be beating the hustings to find someone like Davis to play the one so that they can make use of Szczerbiak.



P-Dub34 said:


> I'm just saying, there is no way say for certain why he got the contract he did - we can speculate, and draw our own inferences, but nothing concrete.


I suppose the "Kevin is a moron" argument is possible, though I don't buy it. He used to be overrated, though the shine's off those shoes. He's a middle of the road executive. Off the top of my head the three wing players that most (stupid) people would place as overpaid; Allan Houston, Penny Hardaway, and Jalen Rose, all were very different cases. Houston was, when he got his max deal, considered a type of Ron Artest Lite (to make the comparison to active players), one of the better defensive wings in the NBA that was a solid 19+ p/g guy. He was also the captain of that Knicks' squad and coming off two All-Star seasons. _And he continued getting better_. It's really only been the last two seasons that age and injury caught up with him. In keeping with his character he chose to officially retire (rather than sitting on IR collecting checks). Hardaway was a four time All-Star when he got his max deal, and a player that could run the offense from the 2 (allowing his team to use an undersized shooting guard at the 1), and regularly put up 20 p/g 6a/g seasons in his prime. Again, a great deal more versatile and talented than Wallyworld. As for Rose, he was one of the NBA's better sixth men, who when promoted to the starting lineup put up 18/5/5 numbers. He was considered a top flight point forward, and expected to put up 20/5/5 numbers on a regular basis (which he did for several years). Again, a much better all round player than the 16 p/g, injury prone, spot shooter.

And, frankly, a couple of current basketball executives tacitly admit that NBA teams are looking for white players to promote



Larry Bird said:


> "You know when I played you had me and Kevin (McHale) and some others throughout the league. I think it's good for the fan base because as we all know the majority of the fans are white America. And if you just had a couple of white guys in there, you might get them a little excited. But it is a black man's game, and it will be forever. I mean the greatest athletes in the world are African-American."





Magic Johnson said:


> "We need some more LB's, Larry Birds. I mean you know, you want that. Larry Bird, you see, can go into any neighborhood. When you say 'Larry Bird,' black people know who he is, Hispanics, whites, and they give him the respect."


So, yes, NBA execs _are_ looking for white players and _do_ pay a premium to get them. Wally's no magical exception.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

ehmunro said:


> Off the top of my head the three wing players that most (stupid) people would place as overpaid; Allan Houston, Penny Hardaway, and Jalen Rose,


most (even stupid) people would not argue that Wally got his contract and is over paid simply because he's white.




ehmunro said:


> So, yes, NBA execs _are_ looking for white players and _do_ pay a premium to get them. Wally's no magical exception.


Just because Bird and Magic made comments about white players does not make the case of why Wally got his contract.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Causeway said:


> most (even stupid) *people would not argue that Wally got his contract and is over paid simply because he's white.*
> 
> 
> 
> Just because Bird and Magic made comments about white players does not make the case of why Wally got his contract.


i tend to doubt that


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

[ double post ]


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

I could be wrong. Not sure it's worth a poll but I'd be interested to see in here what the general consensus is on Wally and the "White Issue".


----------



## agoo (Jun 1, 2003)

Speaking with a little bit of an education in marketing and brand promotion, Wally is extremely marketable. Its not just the color of his skin, the ladies like him, and he looks like a mama's boy. So yes, you do pay a bit of a premium for that. He's a decent player who's value gets jacked up a bit more because of how marketable he is. Agents know that and owners have to pay for it. Until they stop paying for it, it will continue to happen.

Its why Troy Murphy can get as much as he is getting, but Drew Gooden won't sniff that money. Its not just a white thing either. Jason Williams is a whitie who doesn't have the marketability to most people that a guy like Wally has. See what Luke Ridnour gets when his deal is up and compare it to Jason Williams.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

I hear you agoo. I guess you DO have to sell tix etc.


----------



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

agoo101284 said:


> Speaking with a little bit of an education in marketing and brand promotion, Wally is extremely marketable. Its not just the color of his skin, the ladies like him, and he looks like a mama's boy. So yes, you do pay a bit of a premium for that. He's a decent player who's value gets jacked up a bit more because of how marketable he is. Agents know that and owners have to pay for it. Until they stop paying for it, it will continue to happen.
> 
> Its why Troy Murphy can get as much as he is getting, but Drew Gooden won't sniff that money. Its not just a white thing either. Jason Williams is a whitie who doesn't have the marketability to most people that a guy like Wally has. See what Luke Ridnour gets when his deal is up and compare it to Jason Williams.


Sure, but here you're establishing that you have to be perceived as white trash (by the public at large) to _not_ make the premium. And he got six and forty five at that (I'd never give that kind of coin to a one guard that shoots like Alabaster Fudge). And that pretty well makes my point. :bsmile:


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> Its why Troy Murphy can get as much as he is getting


Troy Murphy is getting what he's getting because Mullin signs everyone and their dog to long, bloated contracts. He's also ugly as hell. What about Junior? Same deal?


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

The value of marketability can be said of all players though. Wally had decent #'s when he signed his contract. He was not just white. Otherwise I'd be making big bucks to play hoops.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

P-Dub34 said:


> Troy Murphy is getting what he's getting because Mullin signs everyone and their dog to long, bloated contracts. He's also ugly as hell. What about Junior? Same deal?


 :biggrin:


----------



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

TheBigDonut said:


> i tend to doubt that


Yeah, I see from your post that he made no attempt to explain the premium over the better wing players in the same free agent class (unless you edited it out, I'm not curious enough to look).



P-Dub34 said:


> Troy Murphy is getting what he's getting because Mullin signs everyone and their dog to long, bloated contracts. He's also ugly as hell.


Dude, Troy Murphy is Irish American, he was getting that deal from _someone_, even if Mullin demurred. JR put up back to back 19/7 and 22/6 seasons to get his deal (while having shown steady improvement over his career), so he was going to get a large payday, too.


----------

