# Celtics Sign Hunter, James



## Truth34 (May 28, 2003)

Check out the Herald, Globe. Ainge has filled the roster to the max.

Today we sign PF Brandon Hunter to a two-year deal worth $1 million.

We also will blow off Travis Best and sign his backup, PG Mike James to a 1-year minimum deal worth $639,000.

Travis Best should get a new agent.

James is younger, bigger, but not quite the shooter. Apparently, they like his defense.

The roster now:

C Battie, Baker, Blount
PF Walker, Hunter
SF Williams, McCarty, Brown
SG Pierce, Delk
PG Banks, Bremer 

IL Perkins, James, Sundov


----------



## agoo (Jun 1, 2003)

I'm not familiar with James and I thought the point of getting another PG was that he'd be a veteran. Guess I was wrong.

But, Ainge signed Hunter. I'm elated. This guy is going to be good.


----------



## theBirdman (Jun 20, 2003)

Links:
http://www.bostonherald.com/sport/celtics/cs07252003.htm

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/206/sports/Hunter_is_brought_aboard+.shtml


YES!!! Hunter signed. Now I am happy!This guy is going to be great!

But about signing James?! What is this? I dont know the guy but dont we want a veteran PG? I dont think he is better than Banks or Delk! If Banks needs more time then JR or Delk can play PG! Arent they better than James?! I think we dont need this guy! He doesnt help us at all!

Well, the most important thing is signing Hunter! I can live with James or whomever at PG!
I am happy...


----------



## Big John (Sep 11, 2002)

James is a little like Kevin Ollie. He played just about everywhere (Austria, France, USBL, CBA) before sticking with Miami. He is from Long Island (NY) and was undrafted out of Duquesne.

Travis Best was going to cost more than the minimum, because he was also talking with Indiana. My guess is that Ainge did not want to get into a bidding war.

The signing of Hunter is a no brainer, and I hope that Danny also got a team option for the third year.


----------



## Richie Rich (May 23, 2003)

Very good move by Ainge, do ya' thing Hunter!!! :yes:


----------



## Bad Bartons (Aug 23, 2002)

*Hunter is a good signing*

I was worried that the C's would miss out on this rebounding and hustling machine.

They got it right.

Great signing. Hunter is going to be ready to provide some quality minutes off the bench.

The Mike James signing is a little puzzling. I think that with the Brad Miller trade the Pacers freed up some room to get Best. I am not familiar with James but his stats are very similar to Best's. So it looks like a decent move.

So we have our team, barring any trades. I like it but it is a little hard to get overly excited by the Boston off season when the Lakers grabbed Payton and Malone. Still, Baker should be better. Kedrick will get more time. We are stronger and much deeper at the point. Toine is in better shape. We kept our core of players together that are used to playing together. It is so often overlooked that players like to play with players that they know, understand and trust. The Boston Celtics are not the best team in the NBA but they are one of the most stable. They have great friendships and they are becoming comfortable in their roles on the team. These are also men of good character. It makes it easier to root for them. I live in the Portland, OR area and it is very hard to enjoy the Blazers even when they are winning because they are a bunch of punks.


----------



## Richie Rich (May 23, 2003)

*Re: Hunter is a good signing*



> Originally posted by <b>Bad Bartons</b>!
> I was worried that the C's would miss out on this rebounding and hustling machine.
> 
> They got it right.
> ...








ExceLLent post BB. :yes:


----------



## Bad Bartons (Aug 23, 2002)

*Thank you*

Thank you


----------



## Truth34 (May 28, 2003)

*Lakers v. Celtics?*

Realistically, we are not going to compete with the Lakers anyway. (Although Gary Payton is 35 now, Karl Malone is 40, and Kobe, who knows?) Or the T'Wolves, or the Spurs, or the Kings or the Mavs. It would appear, though, that we are already a better team on paper than last year. Now, can O'Brien coax a year like 2002 out of this group?

Maybe Pierce can return to his shooting form (40% 3pt percentage vs. 30% last year), maybe Antoine's shooting and rebounding numbers will improve, and maybe Vin Baker returns and gives us something (all accounts are optimistic about his offseason regimen, ala Antoine). 

There is room for improvement for the 3 max players, as well as Kedrick Brown. I am optimistic.


----------



## Bad Bartons (Aug 23, 2002)

*After the Lakers*

Boston will not really compete with the Western powers next year. I want them to compete for the Eastern crown. If a team wins the East then they at least have a chance at a title.

What the Celtics should be doing is building towards being the champions after the Lakers are done. Shaq is the key to LA and he is starting to slip. Kobe cannot lead the team to a title by himself any more than TMac can. When Shaq, Malone, and Payton are gone who will be the dominant teams in the NBA?

Duncan will be there but how important was David R. in their championships? I think we will see that David was very important in providing support for Duncan.

Garnett's team should be there. What SA and MIN do this year will be very indicative of what to expect from these two teams when Shaq is no longer a dominant force.

Sac and Dallas should continue to be very competitive.

Where does Boston fit in when Shaq is gone? This years draft is huge in the future of the C's. If Banks becomes a top Eastern point and Kendrick Perkins becomes a solid Eastern center and Kedrick starts living up to his athletic potential then Boston has the makings of a top level team. These are all big IFS.

I am excited about Ainge, O'Brien and the new Celtic quest for 17. It will not happen this year but if the IFS go well we may slip in number 17 in the not so distant future.


----------



## Big John (Sep 11, 2002)

I am very optimistic.

The moves the Lakers made were a quick fix. Malone will be gone in a year or two, Payton will be in his late 30's, Shaq is already on the decline and Kobe may be a guest of the State of Colorado. Besides, the Lakers still have to get past the Spurs, and I'm not sure they can do that even with their current "fab four" intact.

The Celtics' moves were for the long haul. Now they have four very promising players who are 21 years old or younger-- Banks, Brown, Hunter and Perkins-- plus Pierce (25) and Walker (27). 

In two years Vin Baker will be tradeable (to teams looking to clear cap space, a la Terrell Brandon) and in three years he will be gone, permitting them to sign another good player. When that happens, watch out.


----------



## Bad Bartons (Aug 23, 2002)

*good thoughts Big John*

The next three or four years should be good ones to be a Celtic fan. That is if we do not take on another terrible max contract.

Paul is a max guy. Antoine will be taking a pay cut. Vin will either retire or take a HUGE pay cut. We have Banks, Hunter and Kendrick to low cost contracts for the next three years. Kedrick will sign for a low amount unless he has a breakout season. Williams contract is expiring.

I have faith that Danny Ainge will make good decisions with the money that the C's will be spending.


----------



## theBirdman (Jun 20, 2003)

Great posts BB and BJ! I agree with what you said. Well, I dont think we can challege for the east crown. NJ and DET seem to strong for us at this moment! So, our chance is 2-3 years away-it depends on trading Baker for a star or signing a star FA when his contract expires just like you said! We have to be patient! And lets face it-to win a ring against a western team next couple of years is going to be extremely tough if not impossible! So we just have to add pieces and form a team that can be a serious contender in 3 years! Banner number 17 we await you!


----------



## mrsister (Sep 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>theBirdman</b>!
> Great posts BB and BJ! I agree with what you said. Well, I dont think we can challege for the east crown. NJ and DET seem to strong for us at this moment!


I don't think Detroit is too strong for us, even with the addition of Darko and Brown as the coach. They've been relatively quiet in the offseason. The Celtics can play similar defense, and I think the offense could be better this year. Perhaps Hunter could even compete with Wallace on the boards, and he appears to have offense to go with his defense. New Jersey still appears to be too strong, but we can always hope someone else can eliminate them.


----------



## theBirdman (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>mrsister</b>!
> I don't think Detroit is too strong for us, even with the addition of Darko and Brown as the coach. They've been relatively quiet in the offseason. The Celtics can play similar defense, and I think the offense could be better this year. Perhaps Hunter could even compete with Wallace on the boards, and he appears to have offense to go with his defense. New Jersey still appears to be too strong, but we can always hope someone else can eliminate them.


Well, addition of Elden makes a big difference for DET. It gives them a solid Center who can score. And I would not even dream that Hunter can compete with Wallace. Maybe in a few years!


----------



## agoo (Jun 1, 2003)

I like Boston vs. Detroit simply because we play very well against them (save that horrible blow out last season). In the last two seasons, the series record is 8-5 in favor of Boston, including 4-1 in the playoffs. The four losses (not counting the blow out) are by an average of just over 6 points so even when they beat us, its close.


----------



## Big John (Sep 11, 2002)

Elden Campbell is a tired old man and the signing has less significance that the resigning of Blount. It's just insurance in case Darko is a flop or Wallace gets hurt.


----------



## bujabra (Jun 14, 2003)

I dont understand why the Pistons are seen as the second best team in the east, they havent done anything except drafting Darko (Mystery man!) and adding Campbell (solid not star)! They have to do much more than that to compare to the Celtics who have done the same and better by keeping the same team and adding great rookies around them!


----------



## ThereisnoIinteam3 (Apr 19, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>bujabra</b>!
> I dont understand why the Pistons are seen as the second best team in the east, they havent done anything except drafting Darko (Mystery man!) and adding Campbell (solid not star)! They have to do much more than that to compare to the Celtics who have done the same and better by keeping the same team and adding great rookies around them!


Regardless of what they have as their roster on paper they have still been the best team (overall) in the East the last few years. Finishing 2nd in 2002 and 1st in 2003. They get better every year and deserve some credit for that.


----------



## theBirdman (Jun 20, 2003)

Yes. I dont understand why they dont get any credit. I believe they will prove again this year how good they are!


----------



## mrsister (Sep 9, 2002)

Detroit is good. Their record shows that. However, the Celtics aren't intimidated by them and have shown they can beat them, even in playoff situations. Whereas, New Jersey can and has run over the Celtics. They swept both Boston and Detroit in the playoffs. While the Pistons sported the better season record, New Jersey is the better team.


----------



## ThereisnoIinteam3 (Apr 19, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>mrsister</b>!
> While the Pistons sported the better season record, New Jersey is the better team.



Last year NJ was the better team. This year has not taken place yet. That doesn't even take into consideration that Chauncey was scoring baskets like crazy before he got hurt. Who knows what would have happened if he was not hurt.


----------



## -33- (Aug 6, 2002)

i'm sure you guys are wondering who Mike James is (no relation to LeBron, sorry fellas)

Mike can play....once Riley gave up on the season, Mike played alot every game for the Heat....he can shoot lights out and thats probably his best attribute...good smart player at the point and pretty much gets the job done when he's asked to....off the court he's a great guy, one of my favorite heat players, does alot in the community with kids....


----------



## NE sportsfan (Jun 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Caron_Butler</b>!
> i'm sure you guys are wondering who Mike James is (no relation to LeBron, sorry fellas)
> 
> Mike can play....once Riley gave up on the season, Mike played alot every game for the Heat....he can shoot lights out and thats probably his best attribute...good smart player at the point and pretty much gets the job done when he's asked to....off the court he's a great guy, one of my favorite heat players, does alot in the community with kids....


sounds good. while as of now i think that we would rather have had best as the veteran presence at point. if best wasnt going to accept the minimum, james seems like he can be a decent 2nd/good 3rd point guard for this team.


----------



## bujabra (Jun 14, 2003)

Its great to see the Celtics going for good guys...guys that contribute on and off the court!


----------



## w-h-i-t-e-b-o-y (Jul 14, 2002)

*Why not Shammond?*

I love the signing of Hunter I think he will be the next Fortson only with muscles and less baggage and more scoring ability.

It seemed to me that Shammond played pretty good for us last year and right now he aint headed back to Denver so why Mike James over Shammond. Everyone knows that Shammond can shoot and Mike James is unknown.


----------



## Richie Rich (May 23, 2003)

*Re: Why not Shammond?*



> Originally posted by <b>w-h-i-t-e-b-o-y</b>!
> I love the signing of Hunter I think he will be the next Fortson only with muscles and less baggage and more scoring ability.
> 
> It seemed to me that Shammond played pretty good for us last year and right now he aint headed back to Denver so why Mike James over Shammond. Everyone knows that Shammond can shoot and Mike James is unknown.








Shammond was traded b/c he didn't reaLLy fit in weLL with our system, I think, correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## NE sportsfan (Jun 2, 2003)

*Re: Why not Shammond?*



> Originally posted by <b>w-h-i-t-e-b-o-y</b>!
> I love the signing of Hunter I think he will be the next Fortson only with muscles and less baggage and more scoring ability.
> 
> It seemed to me that Shammond played pretty good for us last year and right now he aint headed back to Denver so why Mike James over Shammond. Everyone knows that Shammond can shoot and Mike James is unknown.


shammond is a shooter not a point guard. we wanted a true point guard. now i dont really know anything about james, but apparently he is the true point guard that ainge wanted.


----------

