# Pierce deal?



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

This was posted today at Real GM by some dude -- 

FWIW, ESPN 1000 just reported that Chris Broussard (sp?) of ESPN.com is saying that Bulls have met with Celtics with two possible scenarios. 

1. Pierce for Gordon and TT 

2. Pierce, Davis, Blount for Gordon, TT and Knicks 2006 pick. 

Hmmmm..... 

Isn't the same guy (Broussard) that said that Gordon wasn't happy in Chicago a few weeks ago?

Here's what was said in several follow-up posts -- 

Davis who? Ricky? I can't believe Paxson would want him - and that trade doesn't work under the trade checker. I don't know how we could match salaries with Pierce, Blount & Davis. 

PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 5:46 pm 

I'm at work, so maybe I misheard it. It might have been 'Davis OR Blount' instead of 'Davis AND Blount'. 

PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 5:52 pm 

Ok, that makes sense. If given the choice I'd take Blount. 

PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 5:59 pm 

It's true. ESPN 1000 is reporting that on ESPN's Cold Pizza this morning they said a deal for Pierce and Gordon is close. They don't know any other players involved in the rumor. 

TT salary = Pierce 

Blount has Trade Kicker (dont know how much). Gordon will not equal him exact, we will need to add Allen or Piatkowski (depending on Kicker). 

If there is a deal, this makes sense. 

Why not give Boston the right to SWAP its pick for the NY pick to get Pierce???? We'd still have 2 picks then. 

but I think it's another rumor 


(all this stuff is stolen but it sounds interesting I heard that it has even hit ESPN on tv that Pierce deal is eerily similar to the one I proposed so I hope Pax gets it done!)


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Deal #2 and I think we might challenge for the title next season. Really.

But it really doesn't make that much sense unless there's more to it.

All three immediately join our starting lineup:

Hinrich
Davis
Pierce
Blount
???

The ??? (PF) is the big question. You have Deng and Nocioni who need minutes, and then Othella and Sweetney, too. Also to factor into the equation are Chandler and Songaila.

24 minutes of PT at guard and 8-12 at SF are available. Pierce is going to play 36 to 40 minutes and might get some burn at SG.

But boy would we be deep.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

This sounds promising. Hopefully it's not a bunch of hot air. I'd hate to see Gordon go, but you have to give up quality to get a guy like Pierce.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

direct from mike mcgraw to everyone (via an email to me):

Paxson just came downstairs at the Berto Center and said whoever
started the Gordon for Paul Pierce rumor on ESPN is irresponsible. *No basis
in fact whatsoever. So there's a little inside info for you.*



i anticipate having mike's answers to our questions posted sometime this afternoon. he's just proofing his stuff.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

mizenkay said:


> direct from mike mcgraw to everyone (via an email to me):
> 
> Paxson just came downstairs at the Berto Center and said whoever
> started the Gordon for Paul Pierce rumor on ESPN is irresponsible. *No basis
> ...


Bah. Well, he should MAKE a factual basis for it, then!


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> direct from mike mcgraw to everyone (via an email to me):
> 
> Paxson just came downstairs at the Berto Center and said whoever
> started the Gordon for Paul Pierce rumor on ESPN is irresponsible. *No basis
> ...


In other words, the deal is done.

:biggrin:


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Where there is smoke there is fire and I bet that they are at least talking about A deal.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> This was posted today at Real GM by some dude --
> 
> FWIW, ESPN 1000 just reported that Chris Broussard (sp?) of ESPN.com is saying that Bulls have met with Celtics with two possible scenarios.
> 
> 1. Pierce for Gordon and TT


Deal #1 seems too good to be true. I would hate to take back Mark Blount in any trade involving Pierce. 

As far as Pax denying the report... it wasn't that long ago when we heard the Hornets organization come out and deny any trade talk involving Jamal Magloire. Then two days later Magloire got traded!


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

SALO said:


> Deal #1 seems too good to be true. I would hate to take back Mark Blount in any trade involving Pierce.
> 
> As far as Pax denying the report... it wasn't that long ago when we heard the Hornets organization come out and deny any trade talk involving Jamal Magloire. Then two days later Magloire got traded!



No Blount? I know he's not the greatest, but we could use the size.

As far as the rumor goes, it seems like standard operating procedure to deny an impending deal to high heaven until it is actually complete.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

That would be a bad deal, unless we're discussing deal #2 which would just be a horrible deal. Makes us slightly better now but pretty much takes away any chances of adding a good big man through FA or the draft.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

mizenkay said:


> direct from mike mcgraw to everyone (via an email to me):
> 
> Paxson just came downstairs at the Berto Center and said whoever
> started the Gordon for Paul Pierce rumor on ESPN is irresponsible. *No basis
> ...


yeah on that, 

And the Trib rushed the rumor story:

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...gordon,1,1719231.story?coll=cs-home-headlines


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

it'd be nice if Pax would get over his indignation that sports journalists like to start rumors (THE HORROR!!), and actually realize that the deals being floated out there merit some very serious consideration.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

It's too bad -- Pierce for Tim Thomas and Gordon is an absolute steal. It's not every day you get to add a 28-year-old sure bet for the All-NBA Second Team who puts up these sorts of numbers . . . 

Ranks #5 in the NBA in Points Per Game(26.5) 
Ranks #18 in the NBA in Minutes Per Game(38.9) 
Ranks #4 in the NBA in Minutes Played(1360.0) 
Ranks #5 in the NBA in Field Goals Made(307.0) 
Ranks #10 in the NBA in Field Goal Attempts(613.0) 
Ranks #4 in the NBA in Free Throws(263.0) 
Ranks #4 in the NBA in Free Throw Attempts(325.0) 
Ranks #14 in the NBA in Defensive Rebounds(225.0) 
Ranks #18 in the NBA in Defensive Rebounds Per Game(6.4) 
Ranks #4 in the NBA in Points(926.0) 
Ranks #14 in the NBA in Field Goals Per 48 Minutes(10.84) 
Ranks #5 in the NBA in Free Throws Per 48 Minutes(9.28) 
Ranks #5 in the NBA in Free Throw Attempts Per 48 Minutes(11.47) 
Ranks #8 in the NBA in Points Per 48 Minutes(32.7) 
Ranks #4 in the NBA in Total Efficiency Points(929.0) 
Ranks #6 in the NBA in Efficiency Ranking(26.54) 
Ranks #7 in the NBA in Efficiency Ranking Per 48 Minutes(32.79) 

. . . for an expiring contract and a 6-2 combo guard.

Wouldn't it have been okay for Paxson just to take Gordon aside and tell him there wasn't any truth to this? Why the big public display of emotion?


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

If this were a possibility, I'd love it. Really Hate to lose Ben.

He will blow up in Boston.

However, we get a top 25 player with 6 years of great to good ball left in him, that's worth no cap space this off-season and Ben.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Here is a great 82games article written in response to Bill Simmons's last column, which jokingly asked them to crunch some Celtics-specific numbers.

Come get a taste: 



> Bill has a few other off the wall 'fun' numbers to look at. It turns out though that Boston hasn't committed a particularly high number of 24-second violations in the fourth quarter, and actually their opponents have committed more. In terms of the botched '2 for 1' opportunities that's a good subject to bring up, but something we will address shortly in another article. Finally we're still working on a way to filter the databases for 'accidentally running out of timeouts' and 'causing fans to throw remotes' -- we'll just take Mr. Simmons' word that Doc has been guilty of a fair amount of that.
> 
> Is Doc a bad coach? We won't answer that, but one thing we would agree with is that trading Paul Pierce for anything less than fair value would be a big, big mistake.


http://82games.com/simmons.htm


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

ive heard ALL of this b4 from pax.i wont get my hopes up but wheres theres smoke theres fire so i would say at the very least pax is working on a trade and most likly with boston..

also why would he get so pissed about a rumor?they come out of the mill everyday.his reauctions leads me to beleave that there may be some truth to the rumor..


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Gordon/TT for Pierce isn't really the true deal. It's more like Gordon/2 FA players for Pierce. How is that a good deal?


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> It's too bad -- Pierce for Tim Thomas and Gordon is an absolute steal.


I agree, this is the trade I prefer, reason being we don't take back Blount. Factor we won't be paying Gordon next season and I believe we still have enough cap space to still land a big man a helluva lot better than Mark Blount. 



> Wouldn't it have been okay for Paxson just to take Gordon aside and tell him there wasn't any truth to this? Why the big public display of emotion?


Maybe because it's the same person (Sheridan) reporting this story who also reported a few weeks ago that Ben was demanding a trade. Since then Ben came out in the papers and said those words never came out of his mouth. Now this guy is "supposedly" making up yet another story involving Gordon and the Bulls. 

But I agree with ace, I believe Chicago and Boston have talked about a trade. Whether it is one of the above deals mentioned I don't know, but I'm pretty sure they have been talking. A deal between these two teams just seems to make a lot of sense.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Deal #1 sounds too good to be true. Much as I like Gordon, to move just him and Thomas for Pierce would be great. In the immediate term, it improves the team inasmuch as Pierce is pretty much a guaranteed 20-point per night scorer. We still don't add any size, but we'd keep the two draft picks and even if both the Bulls and Knicks make the playoffs, they'll be some decent bigs available who'll do what is needed.

I don't see why Boston does either deal other than to tank and re-tool and for the cap space. Of course, they're going nowhere with Pierce so maybe Ainge thinks a new direction is in order...


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Interesting rumor. Not nuts about having to take on Blount's deal, but Pierce is a very good player. I'd hate to see Ben go.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Gordon/TT for Pierce isn't really the true deal. It's more like Gordon/2 FA players for Pierce. How is that a good deal?


It'd be nice to win a deal on a talent basis -- just for once. 

Pierce is a vastly better addition than Joel Pryzbilla or Nazr Mohammed or any of the rest of the trash barge that is the 2006 FA class. As long as we keep one first rounder from this year (and I'm sure that's what the sticking point is, Ainge wants the Knicks' pick) and still have the first-round swap with the Knicks next year, that is plenty of incoming assets for restocking imo.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> It'd be nice to win a deal on a talent basis -- just for once.


Steve Francis may be available...


----------



## SPIN DOCTOR (Oct 31, 2002)

My guess is to why Pax gets so upset about the "irresponsible" behavior is the fact that he has a canary problem in his office, and has yet to indentify it and take action to correct it. Think about, before every major deal he has made, it somehow has been leaked to the press. If your the GM, thats embarrassing and makes things more difficult to operate without the protection of the cloak of secrecy.

On the nuther hand, I would honestly take either deal, but deal #1 is pretty attactive. Mark Blount maybe overpaid garbage, but he is a serviceable big that can be rotated out for Tyson for defensive presence in the 4th quarters. It sure would be great if Tony Allen was a throw in.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

SPIN DOCTOR said:


> My guess is to why Pax gets so upset about the "irresponsible" behavior is the fact that he has a canary problem in his office, and has yet to indentify it and take action to correct it. Think about, before every major deal he has made, it somehow has been leaked to the press. If your the GM, thats embarrassing and makes things more difficult to operate without the protection of the cloak of secrecy.
> 
> On the nuther hand, I would honestly take either deal, but deal #1 is pretty attactive. Mark Blount maybe overpaid garbage, but he is a serviceable big that can be rotated out for Tyson for defensive presence in the 4th quarters. It sure would be great if Tony Allen was a throw in.


Yeah, I meant to ask McGraw about that -- leaks. Not anything specific, but where he thinks most journalists get their stuff, and whether or not teams intentionally float things through the press as a means of testing public opinion about possible moves.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> It'd be nice to win a deal on a talent basis -- just for once.
> 
> Pierce is a vastly better addition than Joel Pryzbilla or Nazr Mohammed or any of the rest of the trash barge that is the 2006 FA class.


You've conveniently left out the best players (Harrington, Wallace, Gooden, Nene, Peja). Assuming we do just OK and sign Przybilla and Harrington, I would think a collection of Gordon/Przybilla/Harrington is better than Pierce, plus all are younger with room to improve. I'd say we're losing on talent.

Of course, that scenario is only a "maybe," so if you subscribe to the bird-in-hand theory, I can see why the Pierce deal would look better.


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

if we do this deal i beleave we will have about 7mill in cap space left if we let OH and MA go.if Songaila doesnt take the PO then we would have close to 10MIL in cap then..so do you guys think AI would be willing to come here and play with PP for the same amount of money that he's making now?

also do we have to have our draft picks signed b4 we can start signing FA's? if so then there goes that ideal,if not then we could come out with a line up like this

KH,DH,pargo(signed after we sign a FA)
PP,deng
AI,Deng,AN
DRAFT pick,MIKE,Songaila
TC,?????

well now after looking at that lineup maybe it would be best to go after a FA BIG man..


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

Ben+TT for Pierce is a deal you have to make. They'd still need a solid defensive big to put alongside a hopefully sometime soon has his stuff together Tyson, but between one of Deng/Nocioni(I think we need to make a one or the other decision in the offseason) and our pick, plus the pick swap next year, I think we could fill out that part of the rotation.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

bulls said:


> if we do this deal i beleave we will have about 7mill in cap space left if we let OH and MA go.if Songaila doesnt take the PO then we would have close to 10MIL in cap then..so do you guys think *AI* would be willing to come here and play with PP for the same amount of money that he's making now?
> 
> also do we have to have our draft picks signed b4 we can start signing FA's? if so then there goes that ideal,if not then we could come out with a line up like this
> 
> ...





huh? allen iverson?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> You've conveniently left out the best players (Harrington, Wallace, Gooden, Nene, Peja). Assuming we do just OK and sign Przybilla and Harrington, I would think a collection of Gordon/Przybilla/Harrington is better than Pierce, plus all are younger with room to improve. I'd say we're losing on talent.
> 
> Of course, that scenario is only a "maybe," so if you subscribe to the bird-in-hand theory, I can see why the Pierce deal would look better.


Wallace isn't going anywhere.

For the money he'll command (think at least $70 million), Al Harrington isn't better than Deng or Nocioni.

Nene is coming off major reconstructive knee surgery.

Peja is stick-a-fork-in-him done. 

Paul Pierce is head-and-shoulders flat-out better than any of those guys, and will be for at least 3-4 seasons more. Kirk has thrived at the point, and this gives him a stud 2 guard to play alongside. Pierce gets tons of foul calls. Pierce can finish at the rack. Pierce is not a big man, but he can draw double teams and get our shooters open looks. 

Don't get confused with bogus comparisons to the Jalen Rose trade or by looking at the Celtics record. Pierce is a much better player than Rose ever was, and as the 82games data points out, the Celtics might only have 3-4 wins right now if it weren't for Pierce. He is a major, major talent.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

While Blount isn't the dominating center we need, he is a nice player to have overall. He is averaging 13 ppg in 28 minutes even though his rebounding is worse than Curry's. He is 7'0 and pretty solid on his feet and can hit the open jumpshot. I wouldn't mind having a center rotation of Blount and Chandler (while Tyson develops himself ever so slowly). His contract is only 28 Mil over the next 4 years (he might have a trade kicker), but even that isn't bad money for a 13 ppg scorer who is 7'0.

Hinrich - Duhon
Pierce
Deng - Nocioni
Sweetney - Songalia
Blount - Chandler

That's a pretty good and versatile rotation with alot of players who can play multiple positions.

I'd have to go for that trade even if we have to cough up a first rounder in 2006.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> huh? allen iverson?



I think he is talking Al Harrington Miz.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

IMO the first Bull the C's would ask for is Deng and not Gordon. I wouldnt be against bringing Pierce to Chicago, but I dont know if Pax has the guts to part with draft picks plus his young talent.

And dont forget this is the 343043 time that Pierce has been linked with Chicago. Deja Vu all over again, not going to get excited until something really happens.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

If Ainge does accept a similar deal, he should be immediately fired as part of a new regime (subsequently, Doc Rivers would be fired)...and I think Ainge is a good GM too.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Do it pax. either deal is fine. I will miss Gordon, but Pierce gives us more scoring and size at the sg/wing position that Gordon does not bring. 

Blount is fine, if he comes with Pierce. He covers a need. 

Pierce beats anyone available in FA next season. 

In ainge does this trade the failthful at Boston will complain and it might even cost him his job! Gordon is a nice player but he is not doing what Pierce does night after night. Not yet anyway.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> While Blount isn't the dominating center we need, he is a nice player to have overall. He is averaging 13 ppg in 28 minutes even though his rebounding is worse than Curry's. He is 7'0 and pretty solid on his feet and can hit the open jumpshot. I wouldn't mind having a center rotation of Blount and Chandler (while Tyson develops himself ever so slowly). His contract is only 28 Mil over the next 4 years (he might have a trade kicker), but even that isn't bad money for a 13 ppg scorer who is 7'0.


If we had to take on Blount, we'd only have the MLE this summer, maybe slightly above that, to spend on someone in free agency. However, if we don't take back Blount, then we'd have enough money under the cap to spend on someone better.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Wallace isn't going anywhere.


You know this? For sure?



> For the money he'll command (think at least $70 million), Al Harrington isn't better than Deng or Nocioni.


He doesn't have to be, he's a PF. He just has to better than Sweetney. And I don't think he'll get anywhere close to $70 M.



> Nene is coming off major reconstructive knee surgery.


This I agree with. I wouldn't want to sign him, but did put his name out there.



> Peja is stick-a-fork-in-him done.


Same age as Pierce, so I know what you mean. I think Peja's problem is a case of the Vince Carter disease.



> Paul Pierce is head-and-shoulders flat-out better than any of those guys, and will be for at least 3-4 seasons more. Kirk has thrived at the point, and this gives him a stud 2 guard to play alongside. Pierce gets tons of foul calls. Pierce can finish at the rack. Pierce is not a big man, but he can draw double teams and get our shooters open looks.
> 
> Don't get confused with bogus comparisons to the Jalen Rose trade or by looking at the Celtics record. Pierce is a much better player than Rose ever was, and as the 82games data points out, the Celtics might only have 3-4 wins right now if it weren't for Pierce. He is a major, major talent.


Pierce is a good player, but he's not in the upper echelon class of players with Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, Wade, Lebron, and Garnett. He's not a top 10 player, he's a top 20 player (so he's closer to Rose than he is to Duncan). History suggests you need a top 10 player, maybe even two, to win a championship. And Pierce is getting older. 

I think we could potentially top out at 50 wins, but don't see how we would challenge the Pistons or Spurs with that team.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

Premier said:


> If Ainge does accept a similar deal, he should be immediately fired as part of a new regime (subsequently, Doc Rivers would be fired)...and I think Ainge is a good GM too.


On paper and with a quick glance, Boston would never do this trade. But digging deeper, there is alot more going on. Let's be honest here, the Celtics future and only possibility of success is their young core. They have very good young talent (Al Jefferson, Gerald Green, West, Allen, Perkins). Davis is a good player and somewhat younger than Pierce. PP is 28 and going to be an UFA in a 2007. He doesn't fit their model in all honesty (neither does Blount).

IMO, if they could trade PP and Blount for Gordon (age 21) and draft picks that would fit with their young core of players.

As for Deng v. Gordon, they could use a true guard in Gordon more than Deng. They already have Davis, Gerald Green, Justin Reed to play SF. A guard rotation of West, Gordon, Allen isn't too bad. They also could draft Morrison / Gay to play SF. Right now they have too many players in similar height (6'4" to 6'8") with the same mold. Gordon would give them a true smaller, quicker guard.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Premier said:


> If Ainge does accept a similar deal, he should be immediately fired as part of a new regime (subsequently, Doc Rivers would be fired)...and I think Ainge is a good GM too.


If Pax includes a 1st rounder, that deal is more than fair for the Celtics. I asked this before, but where would you get a better deal (good player + high pick + cap relief)?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> Do it pax. either deal is fine. I will miss Gordon, but Pierce gives us more scoring and size at the sg/wing position that Gordon does not bring.
> 
> Blount is fine, if he comes with Pierce. He covers a need.
> 
> Pierce beats anyone available in FA next season.


I have to agree.


----------



## PatBateman (May 26, 2003)

Frankensteiner said:


> If Pax includes a 1st rounder, that deal is more than fair for the Celtics. I asked this before, but where would you get a better deal (good player + high pick + cap relief)?


THAT DEAL IS NOT FAIR!!! We definitely do not need mid round draft picks which is what we would get. Like the original deal I proposed in another thread, I think this is WAY more fair. If Ainge does the op's mentioned deals, he should be taken out back to the woodshed.

Bos Trades:
Pierce
Allen
Banks

Chi Trades:
Tim Thomas
Hinrich
Gordon

Adjust picks and cash as necessary to sweeten deal for either side.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

truebluefan said:


> Do it pax. either deal is fine. I will miss Gordon, but Pierce gives us more scoring and size at the sg/wing position that Gordon does not bring.
> 
> Blount is fine, if he comes with Pierce. He covers a need.
> 
> ...


i won't complain if Duhon and Thomas/Chandler is involved as well. I'd love it.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

Frankensteiner said:


> Pierce is a good player, but he's not in the upper echelon class of players with Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, Wade, Lebron, and Garnett. He's not a top 10 player, he's a top 20 player (so he's closer to Rose than he is to Duncan). History suggests you need a top 10 player, maybe even two, to win a championship. And Pierce is getting older.
> 
> I think we could potentially top out at 50 wins, but don't see how we would challenge the Pistons or Spurs with that team.


Rose? Rose who? Jalen rose is a top 20 player? He isn't even top 200 right now. Even when we had him, he was 1/2 the player Pierce is. I don't think we would top at 50 wins. We won 47 games last year with the Skiles teamwork approach and no superstars. I could see us being a top 4 team in the Eastern conference for the next 5-6 years if we did this trade. 

You have to remember Boston has been screwed up since Pierce has been there. They were first trying to win with Antoine Walker and Pierce, now with Ricky Davis and Pierce. If he came here, he would be the star, but would have a tremendous supporting cast (something he never has had before).

Lastly, you don't need a top 10 player to win the championship. Look at the Pistons. I would rank Pierce in the top 15 anyways. Who knows, he might elevate to the top 10 on a better, more well rounded team like the Bulls. Actually, I would put PP = Jermaine O'Neal as far as star power and impact in this league. Indiana has done a good job of building around him and no one questions whether he is good enough to lead the team to a championship.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

I love BG and loved what he did for us last season, but we have plenty of young guys. We need somebody who can correct our most significant problem. Free Throw Disparity. Pierce gets to the line as much as any star in the league. Plus with teams focusing on Pierce and guys like Hinrich, Deng, Chandler, Darius, Sweets, Duhon that buy into the team concept, those team guys will see a lot more open looks. The defense argument is moot because if anything Pierce and Gordon are equal on the defensive end. Blount is a serviceable starting Center. I'm thinking that if a deal is done it'll be...

Ben Gordon
Othella Harrington
Tim Thomas
2006 Knicks Pick
2007 Bulls Pick

for

Paul Pierce
Mark Blount

BULLS
Point Guard-Kirk Hinrich
Shooting Guard-Paul Pierce
Small Forward-Luol Deng
Power Forward-Michael Sweetney
Center-Mark Blount

Chris Duhon(PG)
Andres Nocioni(SF)
Darius Songalia(PF)
Tyson Chandler(C)

Jannero Pargo(PG/SG)
Eddie Basden(SG)
Erik Piatkowski(SG/SF)
Randy Holcomb(PF)
Malik Allen(PF/C)

CELTICS
Point Guard-Delonte West
Shooting Guard-Ben Gordon
Small Forward-Ricky Davis
Power Forward-Al Jefferson
Center-Raef LaFrentz

Marcus Banks(PG)
Tony Allen(SG)
Tim Thomas(SF/PF)
Othella Harrington(PF/C)

Dan Dickau(PG)
Orien Greene(PG/SG)
Justin Reed(SF)
Kendrick Perkins(PF/C)

2 1st Round Picks in 2006
2 1st Round Picks in 2007
Cap Space to sign an Al Harrington, Nene, Peja(???), etc.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

PatBateman said:


> THAT DEAL IS NOT FAIR!!! We definitely do not need mid round draft picks which is what we would get. Like the original deal I proposed in another thread, I think this is WAY more fair. If Ainge does the op's mentioned deals, he should be taken out back to the woodshed.
> 
> Bos Trades:
> Pierce
> ...


Don't get too upset. This hasn't actually happened, and who knows if it will.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

PatBateman said:


> THAT DEAL IS NOT FAIR!!! We definitely do not need mid round draft picks which is what we would get. Like the original deal I proposed in another thread, I think this is WAY more fair. If Ainge does the op's mentioned deals, he should be taken out back to the woodshed.
> 
> Bos Trades:
> Pierce
> ...


The problem is, I don't know where you're going to find anything better than the 6th Man Of The Year(who's 21), an expiring contract which could become Al Harrington, Nene, etc., a serviceable big to replace Blount, and 2 1st Round Picks.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

T.Shock said:


> I love BG and loved what he did for us last season, but we have plenty of young guys. We need somebody who can correct our most significant problem. Free Throw Disparity. Pierce gets to the line as much as any star in the league. Plus with teams focusing on Pierce and guys like Hinrich, Deng, Chandler, Darius, Sweets, Duhon that buy into the team concept, those team guys will see a lot more open looks. The defense argument is moot because if anything Pierce and Gordon are equal on the defensive end. Blount is a serviceable starting Center. I'm thinking that if a deal is done it'll be...
> 
> Ben Gordon
> Othella Harrington
> ...


No way I give away both first round picks for Pierce. I would consider sending our pick with Gordon for Pierce, but not both ours and the Knicks' pick plus Ben.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> You know this? For sure?


Nope, I guess I don't know it. I just think the odds of his leaving a title contender (and a team that's set up nicely to compete at a high level for the foreseeable future) for a ~35-win team are extremely low.



> He doesn't have to be, he's a PF. He just has to better than Sweetney. And I don't think he'll get anywhere close to $70 M.


A team that relies on Al Harrington to get the lion's share of minutes at the 4 is, well, gonna look a lot like the Hawks. 



> Same age as Pierce, so I know what you mean. I think Peja's problem is a case of the Vince Carter disease.


Age has little to do with it (Pierce doesn't miss games, ever, btw): I'd feel pretty much the same way about a perfectly healthy Peja. He's a lousy defender, he doesn't get the job done in the clutch, and he can't manufacture his own shot. 



> Pierce is a good player, but he's not in the upper echelon class of players with Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, Wade, Lebron, and Garnett. He's not a top 10 player, he's a top 20 player (so he's closer to Rose than he is to Duncan). History suggests you need a top 10 player, maybe even two, to win a championship. And Pierce is getting older.
> 
> I think we could potentially top out at 50 wins, but don't see how we would challenge the Pistons or Spurs with that team.


How does your Harrington/Pryzbilla plan net us a top-10 player or two?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> No way I give away both first round picks for Pierce. I would consider sending our pick with Gordon for Pierce, but not both ours and the Knicks' pick.


Agreed . . . and perhaps this was/is the sticking point and the reason we saw Angry Pax make an appearance today at the Berto.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

PatBateman said:


> THAT DEAL IS NOT FAIR!!! We definitely do not need mid round draft picks which is what we would get. Like the original deal I proposed in another thread, I think this is WAY more fair. If Ainge does the op's mentioned deals, he should be taken out back to the woodshed.
> 
> Bos Trades:
> Pierce
> ...


Whether or not a deal is fair based on your personal standards is irrelevant. The question is whether or not the deal is fair with respect to other potential offers. I have a hard time seeing other teams matching the quality of that offer. I think it's been proven the last few years that teams never truly get equal value for a star player (see Vince, Shaq, Baron, T-Mac, Wallace trades).

Of course, Boston would have the choice of not trading Pierce at all. But it's not like they're going anywhere with him any time soon, and could lose him for nothing if he decides to opt out. It seems like a no-brainer trade for the Celts, at least from my POV.


----------



## PatBateman (May 26, 2003)

Frankensteiner said:


> Whether or not a deal is fair based on your personal standards is irrelevant. The question is whether or not the deal is fair with respect to other potential offers. I have a hard time seeing other teams matching the quality of that offer. I think it's been proven the last few years that teams never truly get equal value for a star player (see Vince, Shaq, Baron, T-Mac, Wallace trades).
> 
> Of course, Boston would have the choice of not trading Pierce at all. But it's not like they're going anywhere with him any time soon, and could lose him for nothing if he decides to opt out. It seems like a no-brainer trade for the Celts, at least from my POV.


You hit the nail on the head. We'll just keep him rather than get raped by the Bulls in a trade. Ownership wants to re-sign him to a long-term deal, it all just depends on what Paul wants. Something tells me he would rather walk to a contended at the end of next season when his contract is up, then play for the Bulls.

And honestly, who cares what the offers are? There is nothing that is forcing us to trade Paul, especially mid-season. This is not a "Ron Artest-like" situation.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ricky Davis is a 6'7" swingman who is scoring 20 PPG with about 5 RPG and 5APG and 46% FG. His +/- is +11.

He's 26 years old.

We'd be fools not to take deal #2.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Frankensteiner said:


> Whether or not a deal is fair based on your personal standards is irrelevant. The question is whether or not the deal is fair with respect to other potential offers. I have a hard time seeing other teams matching the quality of that offer. I think it's been proven the last few years that teams never truly get equal value for a star player (see Vince, Shaq, Baron, T-Mac, Wallace trades).
> 
> Of course, Boston would have the choice of not trading Pierce at all. But it's not like they're going anywhere with him any time soon, and could lose him for nothing if he decides to opt out. It seems like a no-brainer trade for the Celts, at least from my POV.


I agree about the Celts. The problem is, they are hypothetically in the position we were two years ago. West is a good player but he still needs some time to develop along with Jefferson, Gerald Green, Ben Gordon, and future draft picks. By the time Pierce leaves, I doubt he'll be willing to accept a lesser role and defer to the young guys. It depends on whether Ainge feels that his team can at least compete in the playoffs within the next couple of years. Let me say that Hinrich plus Pierce plus Deng plus Chandler will compete next year.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> Age has little to do with it (Pierce doesn't miss games, ever, btw): I'd feel pretty much the same way about a perfectly healthy Peja. He's a lousy defender, he doesn't get the job done in the clutch, and he can't manufacture his own shot.


Good point about Pierce's age. If you watch PP play, he doesn't score because of pure athleticism (a la Vince Carter or Dominique Wilkins). He is not an off the charts athelete which is why he fell to 9th-10th in the draft. He could easily play until he was 35 years old and be a top player. He uses strength and skill more than anything and his jump shot is pretty much a set shot anyways.

Any combination of Gordon, TT, draft picks in 2006/2007 has to be done. 

Let's face the facts: 
1. 2006 cap space is not going to get us anything close to Pierce
2. 2006 Knicks pick is not going to get us anything close to Pierce
3. 2006 Bulls pick is not...
4. 2007 Knicks swap is not going to get us anythign close to Pierce
5. 2007 Bulls pick is not...


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> direct from mike mcgraw to everyone (via an email to me):
> 
> Paxson just came downstairs at the Berto Center and said whoever
> started the Gordon for Paul Pierce rumor on ESPN is irresponsible. *No basis
> ...


Hopefully McGraw will get a chance to answer us on whether or not McGraw believes Paxson or if he thinks he has to say something like this when a leak comes out before a still-possible deal gets done.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Ricky Davis is a 6'7" swingman who is scoring 20 PPG with about 5 RPG and 5APG and 46% FG. His +/- is +11.
> 
> He's 26 years old.
> 
> We'd be fools not to take deal #2.


Don't need the headaches. Plus Deng / Noc bring more to the table.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

PatBateman said:


> You hit the nail on the head. We'll just keep him rather than get raped by the Bulls in a trade.


You might not like them, but neither of those trade proposals qualifies as "rape."




> Ownership wants to re-sign him to a long-term deal, it all just depends on what Paul wants. Something tells me he would rather walk to a contended at the end of next season when his contract is up, then play for the Bulls.
> 
> And honestly, who cares what the offers are? There is nothing that is forcing us to trade Paul, especially mid-season. This is not a "Ron Artest-like" situation.


I think ultimately, this is correct.

http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/celtics/articles/2006/01/13/long_term_plan_fuels_grousbeck/

WALTHAM -- If Wyc Grousbeck had his way, Paul Pierce would remain a Celtic for the rest of his career and No. 34 would be raised to the rafters.
Considering Grousbeck co-owns the Celtics, oversees the daily operations, and serves on the NBA Board of Governors, he certainly has the power to get what he wants. While personnel decisions technically rest with executive director of basketball operations Danny Ainge, the opinions of Grousbeck and the Celtics' other managing partners heavily influence the process.
With the Celtics struggling to stay in the Eastern Conference playoff picture at 14-21, Pierce willing to consider a trade, Ainge acknowledging the team needs to make changes, and the Feb. 23 trading deadline approaching, Grousbeck was asked for his perspective.
Grousbeck said he is just as disappointed with the Celtics' record as the fans, coaches, and players. He sees a promising core of young players and veterans, starting with Pierce and Delonte West. Above all, he has a long-range view of the situation.
When asked if changes would be made before the trading deadline, Grousbeck said, ''I'm sure that this roster will look different four years from now. I know that sounds like a throwaway line, but I don't know if it will look different four weeks from now or not. We may stay with this roster right through the end of this season. We've got a couple of guys whose contracts are up [Marcus Banks and Justin Reed]. We've got a couple draft picks.
''But I'm not anticipating any blockbuster deal. It's up to Danny and [coach] Doc [Rivers] fundamentally, but I'm not anticipating a blockbuster deal. I'm anticipating trying to keep building this team. We're one game out of the playoffs right now, but we're not playing well enough to avoid being disappointed with the record. Whether or not we're one game out of the playoffs, we've got to do better. Fundamentally, it's up to Danny to make that happen."
Any deal involving Pierce qualifies as a blockbuster. Grousbeck was not concerned by Pierce's recent remarks about the possibility of playing elsewhere. Grousbeck views those comments as the byproduct of frustrating losses and the tedium of answering the same questions about the Celtics' struggles every day. After hearing a clarification from Pierce and receiving a call from Pierce's agent, Jeff Schwartz, Grousbeck was reassured the captain wants to stay in Boston.
''We don't intend for Paul to go anywhere," said Grousbeck. ''Paul has also said that he would like to retire a Celtic and that is my primary goal. Not only do I want him to retire a Celtic, I want his number retired. I want him to have the kind of career here where he would be the last guy to wear No. 34. The way to have that happen is for us to really do something and for him to keep playing at a high level. That's the goal. Life brings changes. It's not a promise, but it's a Page 2 of 2 -- 
Grousbeck knows wins will keep Pierce happy. But the owner acknowledges without a better effort, there cannot be better results.
''I'm disappointed with the record, and in stretches, disappointed with the effort, including, for example, the first half of the Atlanta game," Grousbeck said of Tuesday night's game in which the Celtics trailed, 62-53. ''I didn't think the effort was there. But then, we made a concerted stand in the second half and won the game. But there has to be a more consistent effort. We have to value putting on the uniform more and value the chance to be out there competing for the Celtics more. Over the long term, we are looking for players who do that, value that opportunity.
''As we continue to evaluate the roster over the longer term, not today, but over the long term, we're going to have players that bring it every single night. There are players like that on this team right now and we're going to build around those players . . . There is a quality core here that gives me reason to hope for the future. We're going to stick with the core and try to get better."
While Grousbeck would not single out players worthy of that core group, it became clear during the conversation that Pierce and West belong to it.
''I like Delonte," said Grousbeck. ''I would say that I see with Delonte shooting what he's shooting, never taking a play off, diving on the floor, playing hard, as just one example. I don't want to jinx him, but I think Delonte could have a decade-long, fantastic career here in Boston. He's one example of why I'm very optimistic.
''I saw Paul dive for a ball in practice [yesterday]. When your captain, who is playing the best basketball of his career, is diving, getting floor burns at noon on a Thursday, I think it says something to the rest of the team. So, we've got leadership, we've got some youth. So, I'm optimistic about where we're going.
''Danny is a very active director of basketball operations. Danny evaluates things monthly, certainly season by season. I evaluate things year by year, decade by decade. We're going to be here and we're going to get this right. I can't tell you when, but I see signs that it can get better in the future."


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Hopefully McGraw will get a chance to answer us on whether or not McGraw believes Paxson or if he thinks he has to say something like this when a leak comes out before a still-possible deal gets done.




wondering the same thing, DMD.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

I agree. Deal #2 is a winner. Ricky Davis was almost 6th man of the year last season. He's a studly backup guard. We can make another deal or two for Gooden or Ely to shore up the big man situation.

Would the Cavs want our Pick or Duhon (fill the the salary blanks with our scrubs) for Gooden?

Would the BobCats want our Pick and a filler (Pike?) for Ely?

Give Speedy the full MLE next season.

Hinrich/Claxton
PP/Davis
Deng/Noc

Gooden/Blount/Ely/Chandler/Sweetney/Songo (straighten in out in camp)

Dunno... seems OK to me. I'd like to watch that team, and I think it would win a lot more games than our current one or what we have now plus picks/FAs.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> Don't need the headaches. Plus Deng / Noc bring more to the table.


 2. Pierce, Davis, Blount for Gordon, TT and Knicks 2006 pick. 

We'd still have Deng and Noc.

And a 20 PPG/5/5 26 year old for the Knicks' pick (we won't draft anyone better, slam dunk)


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Nope, I guess I don't know it. I just think the odds of his leaving a title contender (and a team that's set up nicely to compete at a high level for the foreseeable future) for a ~35-win team are extremely low.


I agree, it's a low chance. But if you give him max money, he might just a listen. I mean, the Pistons should know it's going to take a max contract to retain him. That they haven't re-signed him up to this point shows they're having reservations about dishing out such a deal, and at least gives us an outside chance.



> A team that relies on Al Harrington to get the lion's share of minutes at the 4 is, well, gonna look a lot like the Hawks.


Last I checked, the Bulls don't have Tyronn Lue playing the point. Nor is Josh Childress the starting SF. Al Harrington is the best player and highest scorer on the Hawks, he'd be the 4th best player here. That's the big difference.



> How does your Harrington/Pryzbilla plan net us a top-10 player or two?


It doesn't, you're right. But I think in 2-3 years, the core of Gordon/Hinrich/Deng with FA and draft additions has a chance to be a much better team than the one after the proposed Pierce trade.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> We'd be fools not to take deal #2.


I'm all for it.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> It doesn't, you're right. But I think in 2-3 years, the core of Gordon/Hinrich/Deng with FA and draft additions has a chance to be a much better team than the one after the proposed Pierce trade.


Of course it has a "chance" to be better, but how big is that chance? I'd say it's not that great.

My reasons for wanting to do this deal have everything to do with the present. I do know of teams that have won NBA titles without a top-ten player or two. I don't know of any that progressed to a title by playing sub-.500 ball.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Ok, well, you guys are probably right and call me Skip Clueless for the rest of the day.

I'd feel a lot better about this potential trade if Tyson Chandler wasn't such a gigantic waste of space up to this point in the season. As it stands right now, I just think we'll need some more decent big men to compete. Don't know where we'd get them, especially with deal #2.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

NEVER, EVER trust a GM. Most of them are incredibly dishonest. This reminds me of the time Jalen Rose came to Pax and asked him if there was any truth to him getting traded to Toronto and Pax told him "no, not at all". Two days later he was traded. Remember it like it was yesterday. Pax also told Antonio Davis he wasn't trading him, see a pattern here?

There is SOME truth that he has been talking to Danny Ainge. But they'll NEVER admit it until after a deal has been completed.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Ok, well, you guys are probably right and call me Skip Clueless for the rest of the day.
> 
> I'd feel a lot better about this potential trade if Tyson Chandler wasn't such a gigantic waste of space up to this point in the season. As it stands right now, I just think we'll need some more decent big men to compete. Don't know where we'd get them, especially with deal #2.


A rehabilitated Chandler is key to anything we do.

That's why Paxson's remarks on the radio today were so amazingly discouraging. He basically said, "Yeah, it's a huge contract and it looks like we're stuck with it, but you can use a contract like that in today's NBA to make things happen."

I would have liked to hear him say, "We wouldn't have accomplished jack last year without Tyson. We know he had the tumultuous off-season -- marriage, free agency, Eddy -- and we're going to work on him this year and ensure he is totally ready to play ball from here on out."

I mean, Tyson just basically got a very public, very stinging vote of no-confidence if you think about it.


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> I mean, Tyson just basically got a very public, very stinging vote of no-confidence if you think about it.


well he needs to strighting himself out,get his act together and start earning that pay check or get the hell out of town..


----------



## SPIN DOCTOR (Oct 31, 2002)

bulls said:


> well he needs to strighting himself out,get his act together and start earning that pay check or get the hell out of town..


Yep, if somebody was paying me $324,000. 000 per week, I git the hell out of town!


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

SPIN DOCTOR said:


> Yep, if somebody was paying me $324,000. 000 per week, I git the hell out of town!


I'd disappear to Fiji and never be heard from again!


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Chandler NEEDS a big body center next to him and he will be fine. You guys seem to forget how effective he was last season WITH a big body center next to him.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

Paxson denied denied denied today about trading Gordon. He said some people on Cold Pizza had it dead wrong and that whoever reported was being 'irresponsible'

He went on to say he was offended by the rumors because how many times does he have to deny the false report.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

lougehrig said:


> Don't need the headaches. Plus Deng / Noc bring more to the table.


Headaches? Ricky hasn't been detrimental to the franchise at all. You still base that soley on his "triple double attempt" as a Cleveland Cavalier. Ricky is quite possibly one of the nicest guys on the Celtics with the best attitude. He's become somwhat the face of the franchise.

If you think Nocioni and Deng are better players than Ricky Davis, *right now*, then I would like to point out some statistics for you... Also, notice how I said "right now." Only a fool would consider a Deng for Ricky trade assuming the salaries matched up (they would be about four million apart from my memory). Deng is the more valuable player in the long run, but he doesn't bring "more to the table."


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Hopefully McGraw will get a chance to answer us on whether or not McGraw believes Paxson or if he thinks he has to say something like this when a leak comes out before a still-possible deal gets done.



here's what mike said:

_I don't think Pax would be so adament if there was any chance this trade could still happen. But my source told me it was discussed a few weeks ago. I think the Bulls are lukewarm on Pierce and want no part of Davis and Blount._


of course pax didn't exactly deny he had - or hadn't talked to the celtics, about this, about that, about whatever, according to this:



> "It's not based in any fact whatsoever, and I'm not going to sit here and say I talked to Danny Ainge or Boston about this or that because it doesn't do any good.
> 
> "People are just throwing stuff out there, hoping something sticks. It's absolutely irresponsible. Whoever is talking about this has no clue what they're talking about."



ok.

which makes the whole angrypax act today a little overdone. i mean if the celtics called, and wanted to talk pierce, lukewarm position or not, you take the call. or if bulls did try and move gordon and were rejected, cause the terms weren't right, there's really no need to pull the old dudley you did me wrong act. i mean he gets so indignant, like vflog said, about the fact that sportswriters make up stuff. or perhaps sniff stuff out that he doesn't want sniffed out. take a pill. 


(in other news; mike said he'd get us our answers soon, he promised! it's been a busy day. no doubt!!)


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

exactly, it's not as if he DENIED the talks


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Lukewarm on Paul Pierce?

Unreal.

Honeslty, PP is a guy you should be excited about trading for.

Now, perhaps PAX has to put on a stoic public face, does not want to seem too interested, but still.

And Ricky Davis is good and is far from a troublemaker. To want "no part of" him... that's a bad call too, IMO.


----------



## thekid (Apr 3, 2003)

P2 would be the big guard you guys have been looking for. Could Deng be included in a deal for Pierce?


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

wow this died off fast.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> P2 would be the big guard you guys have been looking for. Could Deng be included in a deal for Pierce?


Using Deng to acquire Pierce would just open up another hole. You could fill that with Al Harrington, but then we'd be over the cap without a big man.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

spongyfungy said:


> Paxson denied denied denied today about trading Gordon. He said some people on Cold Pizza had it dead wrong and that whoever reported was being 'irresponsible'
> 
> He went on to say he was offended by the rumors because how many times does he have to deny the false report.



I saw that on the news and Im like why is he sooooo upset no one but us diehards are paying attention anyway the BEARS are in the playoffs and the Cub convention is this week.Heck Pax could trade the entire team for cap space and no one would notice until after the playoffs.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

i think we would be so much better with PP. look at how competitive we already are without a guy like PP.


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

I agree with ACE on this one; where there's smoke, there's fire. I'd jump all over deal #2 like a hobo on a ham sandwich (and I'm a vegetarian!!! ). Pierce, Davis AND Blount would make us a playoff team and a very very deep one. A line-up of

Hinrich

Davis

Pierce

Chandler

Blount

is as good as any starting five in the league right now and we would be ridiculously deep!!!


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

dsouljah9 said:


> I agree with ACE on this one; where there's smoke, there's fire. I'd jump all over deal #2 like a hobo on a ham sandwich (and I'm a vegetarian!!! ). Pierce, Davis AND Blount would make us a playoff team and a very very deep one. A line-up of
> 
> Hinrich
> 
> ...


I'm pretty sure I could think of 8-10 starting lineups that would be better than that.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

Premier said:


> Headaches? Ricky hasn't been detrimental to the franchise at all. You still base that soley on his "triple double attempt" as a Cleveland Cavalier. Ricky is quite possibly one of the nicest guys on the Celtics with the best attitude. He's become somwhat the face of the franchise.
> 
> If you think Nocioni and Deng are better players than Ricky Davis, *right now*, then I would like to point out some statistics for you... Also, notice how I said "right now." Only a fool would consider a Deng for Ricky trade assuming the salaries matched up (they would be about four million apart from my memory). Deng is the more valuable player in the long run, but he doesn't bring "more to the table."


I'm not basing that solely on anything. I'm sure he is a great guy and probably alot better teammate than he was. But look at TT. I mean he is probably nice and a decent teammate, but the guy doesn't even see the gym under Skiles. Our team is built around 100% team first, which is rare in the NBA these days. Strong individual personalities need not apply.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> I'm not basing that solely on anything. I'm sure he is a great guy and probably alot better teammate than he was. But look at TT. I mean he is probably nice and a decent teammate, but the guy doesn't even see the gym under Skiles. Our team is built around 100% team first, which is rare in the NBA these days. Strong individual personalities need not apply.


It's called jiberish


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> I'm pretty sure I could think of 8-10 starting lineups that would be better than that.


Yeah, but that beats the current situation, where 18-24 starting lineups are better than ours.

While there're obviously lots of variables, my guess is that a lot more 8th-10th best teams make the jump to contender than 18th-24th best teams do. The only way bad teams quickly jump to contention is when they land Duncan/James type players. We've got to figure out another way to do it.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Yeah, but that beats the current situation, where 18-24 starting lineups are better than ours.
> 
> While there're obviously lots of variables, my guess is that a lot more 8th-10th best teams make the jump to contender than 18th-24th best teams do. The only way bad teams quickly jump to contention is when they land Duncan/James type players. We've got to figure out another way to do it.


I think we're right around middle of the pack in terms of starting lineups, not in the bottom 5 or 10. Especially the new lineup, which has the more talented Gordon.

My opinion is the Bulls will be much better (in general, and in comparison to Pierce/Davis lineup) in 2-3 years after their draft/FA additions and some maturation from the young players.

And I'm not opposed to trading some of these assets for a star player, just not for THIS star player.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

video of angrypax is up at comcast. top item. 


http://chicago.comcastsportsnet.com/multimedia.asp


i loved mike mcgraws answer about pax being "a little emotional". d'ya think? where's prince valium when you need him?


sorry pax, but you need to seriously chill. and for the record, i'm lukewarm on pierce too.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Yeah, but that beats the current situation, where 18-24 starting lineups are better than ours.


One other quick thing. Yeah, we would be a better starting lineup now, in the 8-10 range. But that's not going to get us a championship and I don't see a way where we could significantly improve that lineup.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

mizenkay said:


> video of angrypax is up at comcast. top item.
> 
> 
> http://chicago.comcastsportsnet.com/multimedia.asp
> ...


I wonder if Jerry ever calls Pax and says "Chill"?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> One other quick thing. Yeah, we would be a better starting lineup now, in the 8-10 range. But that's not going to get us a championship and I don't see a way where we could significantly improve that lineup.


But how is the Al Harrington/Nene/two far-from-sure-thing draft picks team any better in the long run? 

Are you that big of a Harrington fan? That big of a Ben Gordon fan? Do you think that Pax is going to strike gold with the 14th and 11th pick? Are you not sold on Paul Pierce? I don't understand your rationale on this, really.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> But how is the Al Harrington/Nene/two far-from-sure-thing draft picks team any better in the long run?


Yeah, I like Al Harrington, and Pax has proven to be pretty good in making his draft selections, so I'll remain optimistic in that regard.

If we're discussing the 2nd trade proposal where the Knicks' pick is used, we would only have one mid-round draft pick to get our big player. I don't see the Pierce/Davis/Blount addition making us a championship contender, and time wouldn't exactly be on our side with that team.

I think people overrate the Boston players and that previously mentioned starting line-up. I mean, if Boston added Hinrich and Chandler right now, would you seriously consider them a title contender or one of the 4 best team's in the East? I wouldn't.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

mizenkay said:


> video of angrypax is up at comcast. top item.
> 
> 
> http://chicago.comcastsportsnet.com/multimedia.asp
> ...


first time I've seen that...the way he answered would be the same way you would answer if the deal was almost done...you wouldn't want anything to happen at the last second...not saying it will be done, but his reaction told little other than that something major is going on...


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Is your concern about the fit related to the finances or to Pierce's age? Because from a basketball standpoint, I can't think of a better fit amongst semi-plausibly obtainable players.
> 
> Hell, even throw out that qualifier -- a big 2-3 who draws double teams, gets to the line 10 times again, and has no difficulty at all finding his own shot? Granted, we'd still need to find a power player, but I think Pierce fits the current group like a glove.


Except if you include Scott Skiles and John Paxson in the current group. You pointed out yourself yesterday that you don't think they'll bring in anyone that doesn't fit their mold. Pierce doesn't. I don't think that's contraversial to say it. Pierce represents the conventional NBA mindset for players. He's not a "wrong way" guy, but face and preogatives are somewhat implicit in the NBA. A certain power structure. Pierce will practice, but he won't be a maniac. He'll play hard and unselfishly, the right way, but in return he has the temerity to expect the organization will put a team around him that's got a realistic chance of going somewhere someday. By temerity I mean he's smart enough to see when that's not being done and willful enough to complain about it.

In short, like most guys who're set after a big contract or two, he does want to win. But he's not going to toe the company line if he thinks its a line of horse****.

That's not going to cut it for Pax and Skiles I think. Bring him in, and there may well be problems. That's not necessarily a "problem" of Pierce's, but its a problem with Pierce being here.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> Except if you include Scott Skiles and John Paxson in the current group. You pointed out yourself yesterday that you don't think they'll bring in anyone that doesn't fit their mold. Pierce doesn't. I don't think that's contraversial to say it. Pierce represents the conventional NBA mindset for players. He's not a "wrong way" guy, but face and preogatives are somewhat implicit in the NBA. A certain power structure. Pierce will practice, but he won't be a maniac. He'll play hard and unselfishly, the right way, but in return he has the temerity to expect the organization will put a team around him that's got a realistic chance of going somewhere someday. By temerity I mean he's smart enough to see when that's not being done and willful enough to complain about it.
> 
> In short, like most guys who're set after a big contract or two, he does want to win. But he's not going to toe the company line if he thinks its a line of horse****.
> 
> That's not going to cut it for Pax and Skiles I think. Bring him in, and there may well be problems. That's not necessarily a "problem" of Pierce's, but its a problem with Pierce being here.


I wonder if a Raptors fan could weigh in here on Bosh. I haven't heard whether he's just a regular intensity practice player, or a guy who treats shootaround like it's Game 7 of the NBA Finals.

Anyway, you're probably right. I did say I feared that about PaxSkiles -- in fact, I believe I wrote something along the lines of "I just can't see Pax presiding over a championship level team because most of those have old guys who skip a practice here or there or guys who aren't crapping thunder 24/7" -- and I guess I just didn't really want to believe it.

It's too bad.


----------



## Ragingbull33 (Apr 10, 2005)

ace20004u said:


> Where there is smoke there is fire and I bet that they are at least talking about A deal.


normally i would say yes, but i really believe all the gordon trade rumors are a bunch of crap, they keep getting reported because...well idk why but a lot of it comes from the post or the daily news, i think they just want mt vernon gordon on the block and they let any whisper from any source make the sports pages.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I wonder if a Raptors fan could weigh in here on Bosh. I haven't heard whether he's just a regular intensity practice player, or a guy who treats shootaround like it's Game 7 of the NBA Finals.
> 
> Anyway, you're probably right. I did say I feared that about PaxSkiles -- in fact, I believe I wrote something along the lines of "I just can't see Pax presiding over a championship level team because most of those have old guys who skip a practice here or there or guys who aren't crapping thunder 24/7" -- and I guess I just didn't really want to believe it.
> 
> It's too bad.


Yeah, I generally think that too.

I read up a lot on Bosh before he was drafted and he was my favorite. He's a really smart kid and really did go to GA Tech to be an engineer. He appears to play hard, and be the kind of guy who shuts up and works.

That sort of thing seems more important to me than getting floor burns in practice. I'm not sure exactly how to describe the mindset they're lookingfor. It's more like being a workaholic in general who treats basketball like a job. That doesn't necessarily entail floorburns (I doubt Kobe has them) but I do think it's a certain mindset. If you don't treat basketball like its life or death, you aren't on the same page with them.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

19 more FTs shot by the Pacers tonight. If I'm Pax, call the Celtics right now and give them Gordon, 2 1st rounder, hell I throw in Deng instead of Gordon. We need somebody who can get to foul line, we could easily be 21-15 if we took the same amount of foul shots as the opposing team. Pierce gets to the line, the Celtics are going nowhere until he can leave without compensation, and the Bulls with Hinrich, Deng, Nocioni, Songalia, Chandler, Sweetney, Duhon, 1st Round Draft Pick, MLE Free Agent could put together a nice core that could do some real damage in the East.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

T.Shock said:


> 19 more FTs shot by the Pacers tonight. If I'm Pax, call the Celtics right now and give them Gordon, 2 1st rounder, hell I throw in Deng instead of Gordon. We need somebody who can get to foul line, we could easily be 21-15 if we took the same amount of foul shots as the opposing team. Pierce gets to the line, the Celtics are going nowhere until he can leave without compensation, and the Bulls with Hinrich, Deng, Nocioni, Songalia, Chandler, Sweetney, Duhon, 1st Round Draft Pick, MLE Free Agent could put together a nice core that could do some real damage in the East.



Well, thats one thing I cant picture Pax doing: hit the panic button.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> I wonder if a Raptors fan could weigh in here on Bosh. I haven't heard whether he's just a regular intensity practice player, or a guy who treats shootaround like it's Game 7 of the NBA Finals.
> 
> Anyway, you're probably right. I did say I feared that about PaxSkiles -- in fact, I believe I wrote something along the lines of "I just can't see Pax presiding over a championship level team because most of those have old guys who skip a practice here or there or guys who aren't crapping thunder 24/7" -- and I guess I just didn't really want to believe it.
> 
> It's too bad.


Man, I'm almost offended reading that. Hopefully I'm not the only one as this would be a pretty sad place if that was the case.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

lougehrig said:


> I'm not basing that solely on anything. I'm sure he is a great guy and probably alot better teammate than he was. But look at TT. I mean he is probably nice and a decent teammate, but the guy doesn't even see the gym under Skiles. Our team is built around 100% team first, which is rare in the NBA these days. Strong individual personalities need not apply.


I think you misconstued my post.

To say that Ricky Davis is not a "team first" guy is the equivalent of admitting you do not have any idea of his character as part of the Celtics organization.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

From Hollinger's chat (today, ESPN):
*I've heard a lot of talk about the Celtics finally being ready to make a move, and Pierce may not be the only guy in play. I wouldn't be surprised it all if something went down fairly soon. I'm still not sure that's the right direction for Boston, but I'll withhold judgment until I see what they get in return. *


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Yesterday's NY Newsday:

http://www.newsday.com/sports/baske...15,0,1474083.column?coll=ny-sports-columnists

Pierce ponders bolting Beantown


Pierce ponders bolting Beantown
Jan 15, 2006


It's hard to blame Doc Rivers for all of the Celtics' problems. 

It's not his fault that Boston's roster was assembled in a willy-nilly fashion without any discernible or coherent plan.

Yet with Paul Pierce's recent comments that he would be open to a trade, Rivers has to be added to the list of NBA coaches starting to feel some heat.

Pierce, whose relationship with Rivers has been lukewarm at best, is having a career year. And it's being wasted on a less-than-subpar team. 

The Celtics headed into the weekend having lost seven of their last 10 despite Pierce being the No. 6 scorer in the league with an average of 26.5 points. Then they lost to the 76ers in triple overtime, 125-124, Friday night.

It's clear that Pierce is getting sick of coming up big for a team that is going nowhere. Early last week, Pierce was asked if he would mind being traded to a contender.

"It's something I'd give a lot of thought to," said Pierce, 28. "I'd rather have a season like this when we're winning. A career is defined by winning games and championships."

Pierce isn't going to win any championships with the group currently wearing Celtics green, though later in the week, he did say his first choice is to remain in Boston.

Boston executive Danny Ainge understands Pierce's frustration.

"Things like that don't bother me," Ainge said. "Just one week ago, Paul said he wanted to play his whole career in one uniform. It's important for us to keep all our players in the right frame of mind, and it would be great if everyone felt good about everything for the whole year. But that's not the way the NBA season works. All I know is I talk to Paul and he tells me he wants to keep together and get better."


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Sports Illustrated rumor mill, via LA Times:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/scorecard/01/16/truth.rumors.nba/

A source says the Celtics offered Paul Pierce to the Clippers for a package that included Shaun Livingston but were turned down. -- Los Angeles Times


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

Our proposed deal was waaaay better than that, but alas, no deal.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Sports Illustrated rumor mill, via LA Times:
> 
> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/scorecard/01/16/truth.rumors.nba/
> 
> A source says the Celtics offered Paul Pierce to the Clippers for a package that included Shaun Livingston but were turned down. -- Los Angeles Times


Yeesh. Paul appears to be there for the taking if this rumor is true. If he does get traded for something we could have matched or exceeded, my interest in defending Paxson will be almost squelched.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

ESPN Insider has a tidbit in its rumor mill about a Kandi for Blount deal being in the works, FWIW.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> ESPN Insider has a tidbit in its rumor mill about a Kandi for Blount deal being in the works, FWIW.



The Insider most likely got their inside info here: http://www.boston.com/sports/basket...01/17/olowokandi_blount_swap_being_discussed/


One of those "insider" persons wrote a couple of months ago that Pierce wasn't traded this summer for a number of reasons, including the fact that Ainge wanted a lot more for him than any team was willing to give.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> ESPN Insider has a tidbit in its rumor mill about a Kandi for Blount deal being in the works, FWIW.


That's sort of good, but it looks like any team wanting Pierce would probably have to take LaFrentz now.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> Yeesh. Paul appears to be there for the taking if this rumor is true. If he does get traded for something we could have matched or exceeded, my interest in defending Paxson will be almost squelched.



Almost Squelched? Does he have to steal your Kirk Hinrich Jack in the Box? 

Come on. If it was Krause denying this we'd know he was sluething. With Paxson, he's transparent and where's everything on his sleeve. Hmmmmmmmmm.....I guess we won't seem him winning any poker championships. 

I see your Paul Pierce with my Ben Gordon and raise with TT, and two picks..............if his JIB IS RIGHT!!!!!!!!


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Almost Squelched? Does he have to steal your Kirk Hinrich Jack in the Box?


Where can I get one of those? 



> Come on. If it was Krause denying this we'd know he was sluething. With Paxson, he's transparent and where's everything on his sleeve.


Is Pax denying interest in Paul Pierce? He denied a specifically reported trade rumore, but then went on to comment that he wouldn't say one way or another if he'd been speaking with Boston.

Of course, I may have missed a report that the Bulls have no interest in Pierce.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

chifaninca said:


> Almost Squelched? Does he have to steal your Kirk Hinrich Jack in the Box?
> 
> Come on. If it was Krause denying this we'd know he was sluething. With Paxson, he's transparent and where's everything on his sleeve. Hmmmmmmmmm.....I guess we won't seem him winning any poker championships.
> 
> I see your Paul Pierce with my Ben Gordon and raise with TT, and two picks..............if his JIB IS RIGHT!!!!!!!!


Maybe my sarcasm-detector is broken, but I'm not sure what the first line is attempting to insinuate.

Almost squelched, not in that I think Pax is an incompetent boob like some fellow Bulls fans, but from the Curry saga through today, I've been, to put it diplomatically, pretty underwhelmed with his conduct. I'm not anywhere near Fire Pax status yet, but I'm losing the zeal to expend any energy defending him. And it concerns me that he doesn't seem interested in dealing for Pierce, when it at least appears that we can get him without ripping the team apart. I'm starting to think that the people who use "jib" derisively and suggest that Pax will only take on certain clean-cut bootlickers might be on to something...I'm not there yet, but we'll see what happens.

It's not so much that Pax denied, it's that he denied it in a public display of anger and emotion, which makes me think he was serious and not playing the usual coy GM dance.

Ron, in the McGraw answers thread, Mike McGraw mentions that the Bulls are "lukewarm" on Pierce and Paxson might fear that dealing for Pierce would be a Rose deal part 2.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> Maybe my sarcasm-detector is broken, but I'm not sure what the first line is attempting to insinuate.
> 
> Almost squelched, not in that I think Pax is an incompetent boob like some fellow Bulls fans, but from the Curry saga through today, I've been, to put it diplomatically, pretty underwhelmed with his conduct. I'm not anywhere near Fire Pax status yet, but I'm losing the zeal to expend any energy defending him. And it concerns me that he doesn't seem interested in dealing for Pierce, when it at least appears that we can get him without ripping the team apart. I'm starting to think that the people who use "jib" derisively and suggest that Pax will only take on certain clean-cut bootlickers might be on to something...I'm not there yet, but we'll see what happens.
> 
> ...


I seriously question Pax's basketball acumen if he truly thinks that Pierce would equate to a Rose part 2 trade. Of course this is just McGraw's interpretation and not neccessarily how Pax truly fels but I don't like the fact that he shot this rumor down so vehemently. It either means he IS trying to trade for Pierce or he has zero interest in Pierce, which I am not sure.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Imaging Pierce having to try and crack the lineup with Duhon, Hinrich, and Nocioni playing his position. He'd probably never get off the bench. If he whined about it after just one game, he'd be Rose redux.

Heck, if he doesn't impress the coach in a practice or two and 4 minutes of PT in one game, he might end up in a NYC gym practicing with TT.


----------

