# More props for Ainge



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Looks like Minny is finding out about how frustrating Marcus can be with is inconsistent play and what a stone around their neck old Stone Hands can be. As much as I love Ricky, he is also inconsistent and not any better than Wally at defense. Danny definitely got the best of this one. 

*Wolves need to rid themselves of dead wood*



> Those of us who figured getting rid of Wally Szczerbiak and his inflated contract for four players with a chance to contribute was a wise move have been proven incorrect.
> 
> When we endorsed the deal, it was based on the belief Ricky Davis was a better all-around player than Szczerbiak. He's not. Ricky's not an outside shooter, he doesn't get to the basket often, and, shockingly, he's not much better defensively than Szczerbiak.
> 
> ...





> An NBA coach familiar with the Wolves' situation (no more hints) looked at all those contracts when the trade was made and said: "This is their team for the next four years."
> 
> There's nothing worse you could say to those dwindling numbers of Timberwolves followers -- that the team they have been watching since late January is the team they will be watching in the foreseeable future.


----------



## Delontes Herpes (May 11, 2005)

So Banks isn't that good. That doesn't mean that the Celtics got the better end of the deal.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

I thought this trade was ludicrous when we pulled it off. Now, not quite as much. However:

1) Banks is still young, hard enough to believe - he's still gonna make mistakes. Although troubling he isn't learning from them, he has earned rave reviews from most Minnesota fans.

2) Slick hasn't played that well in a T-Pups uni. That's a given. The Wolves needed Wally's outside shooting to spread it for Garnett.

3) Blount sucks. We all knew this.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Delontes Herpes said:


> So Banks isn't that good. That doesn't mean that the Celtics got the better end of the deal.


There's more to this article and the Wolves unhappiness with the results of the trade then just Banks.


----------



## Delontes Herpes (May 11, 2005)

It doesn't matter how unhappy the Wolves are.

How happy are the Celtics with this trade? It really hasn't made them any better.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

13-16 after the trade, 17-26 before. I'd say that's significantly better.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Actually trades are always evaluated on how both (or all) teams are effected.

And this trade did make us better in the short and long term.


----------



## km109 (Jul 18, 2003)

We win on Kandi's expiring contract for Blount's long term deal alone. Does anyone really believe that Marcus Banks is any more now than he was when he came into the league? And maybe it's my imagination, but Paul seems a lot happier with Wally on the court and on the bench than with Ricky. Maybe it's that Wally's game fits better, maybe it's that Ricky's history of a negative personality has gotten better but isn't gone and that had an effect on Pierce. I'm not the world's biggest Ainge fan, but I like this deal better all the time. And I'm not sure, but I think the TWolves winning percentage has dropped since the deal while ours improved.


----------



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

P-Dub34 said:


> 13-16 after the trade, 17-26 before. I'd say that's significantly better.


Except that the improvement all came in Pierce's two week Superman act (when the team went 5-2). Outside that they've been every bit as bad as they were before the trade. It's a move that hasn't really helped either team. Also the 'Wolves lost 15/22 coming into the trade, so technically speaking their 11-20 mark since represents an _improvement_. The article writer is wrong about something else, I believe. Bird rights are transferrable, so as a three year player the 'Wolves won't have to use any of their MLE to sign Banks. Irrelevant ultimately as they're finishing the demolition job this offseason.


----------



## km109 (Jul 18, 2003)

It helps the old argument when you pick out a set of games, but the fact is that the Wolves were 19-21 before the trade. Add the fact that we played most of the time without Perkins and Jefferson while the Wolves were healthy and I still say we got the best of the deal.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

km109 said:


> It helps the old argument when you pick out a set of games, but the fact is that the Wolves were 19-21 before the trade. Add the fact that we played most of the time without Perkins and Jefferson while the Wolves were healthy and I still say we got the best of the deal.


Agreed and I would add that Wally has been a positive influence all around on Pierce.


----------



## Seth (Feb 27, 2004)

Based on getting rid of Blount and aquiring Wally alone, this trade was a success. Banks may develop into a serviceable PG, but the key word in that statement is "may." Right now, he's a project waiting to take shape.

Another lense through which to view this situation is the happiness of the team superstar:

KG's team has no direction and no plan, and seems lost.

PP's team has a positive attitude, seems to be working hard, and has a plan to develop through youth.

Which situation would choose?


----------



## Delontes Herpes (May 11, 2005)

P-Dub34 said:


> 13-16 after the trade, 17-26 before. I'd say that's significantly better.


it was actually 17-25 before, 13-17 after...not a noteworthy improvement

and a lot of that has to do with ryan gomes's emergence...in the period after the trade before gomes entered the starting lineup the C's went 1-6

also paul pierce's superman act (as eh already pointed) has helped the team post trade


----------



## Delontes Herpes (May 11, 2005)

Causeway said:


> Actually trades are always evaluated on how both (or all) teams are effected.
> 
> And this trade did make us better in the short and long term.


as far as who got the better end of the deal goes.

as far as whether the GM deserves props goes, not quite so much. if the wolves finished the season 0-42 while the celtics finished 4-36, i wouldn't be giving danny props despite the fact that they did finish stronger than minny.


----------



## PatBateman (May 26, 2003)

That's all well and good claiming that the Celtics got the better end of the deal, but let's NOT FORGET who drafted Banks in the first place and signed Mark Blount to that huge deal: 

Danny Ainge


He passed on Howard, Planninic, Barbosa, and my favorite, Travis Outlaw (who is going to become a good player, mark my words)

While I like the deal, let's not forget that Ainge put us in that position in the first place. He's back at Zero as far as I'm concerned regarding that specific deal.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

uh...Marcus Banks is averaging 11.4 points (on 48.4% shooting) and 4.6 assists in Minnesota. I wouldn't say he's a project and I would say that he is more than a servicable point guard that is finally getting a decent shot.


----------



## Delontes Herpes (May 11, 2005)

PatBateman said:


> That's all well and good claiming that the Celtics got the better end of the deal, but let's NOT FORGET who drafted Banks in the first place and signed Mark Blount to that huge deal:
> 
> Danny Ainge
> 
> ...


the mark blount deal wasn't huge...he was getting paid 6th/7th man money, which was pretty much market value for him.

Josh Howard was 16 picks after Marcus, it woulda been a stretch to take him at 13.

Are we supposed to regret not having planinic, barbosa, or outlaw? because for some reason, i'm really not that upset that ainge didn't grab them.

Banks wasn't a good pick, but given what was available, he certainly wasn't a bad one.


----------



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

km109 said:


> It helps the old argument when you pick out a set of games, but the fact is that the Wolves were 19-21 before the trade.


I see, so the fact that the Wolves 7-15 in no way indicates that they were a sub .500 team? Must have been the unlucky bounces, eh? :laugh:



Seth said:


> KG's team has no direction and no plan, and seems lost. PP's team has a positive attitude, seems to be working hard, and has a plan to develop through youth.


As both will probably be playing elsewhere next year this rates a "meh". Pierce's negative attitude pre-trade didn't develop until the race trolls began trumpeting Wally's "positive influence". Because prior to the trade Pierce rated kudos around the NBA for his settling into Rivers' offense and his leadership. No doubt, though, that Wally's tendency try and take his man off the dribble and go lumbering into the lane and either a) get stripped from behind by his defender, b) blocked from behind by his defender, c) blocked by a post defender, or d) turn the ball over on a pass, and all at an alarming clip, has contributed to the "new positive attitude".



Delonte's Herpes said:


> and a lot of that has to do with ryan gomes's emergence...in the period after the trade before gomes entered the starting lineup the C's went 1-6


Good call, yes, Gomes' emergence (briefly) as a primo garbage scorer was the other igniter on Pierce's two week tear through the NBA. Now that teams have game-planned for him and Gomes has cooled off, they're playing .400 ball again.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

Once again, I'm not a huge advocate of the trade, but it wasn't as bad as I thought. By the way, Pierce never had a "superman act" of that magnitude with Blount and Davis in the lineup. Hmmm. 

Pierce has been happier and playing at an elevated level with Wally Szczerbiak in the lineup. Fact. Team has been playing better since the trade. Fact. Everybody on the team loves playing with Szczerbiak. Fact. Everybody loves having Blount and his contract gone. Fact. Banks was never going to get a chance to blossom in Boston. Fact. 

Of course, people like ehmunro and #1AWF never elected to even give Wally a chance, so I'm really barking up the wrong tree. This isn't a slam on either of those guys; they're terrific posters in their own right, but it was clear upon the trade neither were content to even give Wally a chance (who, by the way, has elevated his game as of late and is rounding into form.) I like Pierce/Wally as a duo, and they both must be in DA's long term plans (otherwise the trade, indeed, would be a retarded arrangement.)



> Pierce's negative attitude pre-trade didn't develop until the race trolls began trumpeting Wally's "positive influence".


If you're including me in this "race troll" group, then frankly, I am offended. Pierce had a terrific attitude pre-trade and Wally has earned rave reviews from everybody. It has nothing to do with him being white.


----------



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

P-Dub34 said:


> By the way, Pierce never had a "superman act" of that magnitude with Blount and Davis in the lineup. Hmmm.


Pierce has never had a two week stretch where he shot lights out in the final minutes of games? That's news to me and everyone else that's watched him over the years. Pierce's scoring numbers went up because he was asked to do what both LeBron James and Kobe Bryant do, run the offense as the primary scoring option, which meant that he took more shots than ever before (17.2 FGA and 21.5 poss./g pre-trade to 20.9 FGA & 25.8 poss/g post-trade). During February (you know, the month where he put on the Superman act? The month where Wally was "still adjusting to the offense"?) Pierce averaged 23.5 FGA/g and _29 poss/g_ (!). Care to guess why he suddenly put up those numbers? If Pierce took that many shots and used up that many possessions every game he'd score 33.5 p/g. Interestingly enough, ever since Wally "stepped up his game" Pierce has gone back to being the player he always was, and suddenly Boston's a mediocre team again. But I suppose that's just a coincidence. :bsmile:



P-Dub34 said:


> If you're including me in this "race troll" group, then frankly, I am offended. Pierce had a terrific attitude pre-trade and Wally has earned rave reviews from everybody. It has nothing to do with him being white.


Did you, after the trade, claim that Pierce was "unhappy" and "moping"? No? So I guess you aren't included, are you?


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Certain posters can not help but bring up the race card or calling posters who might have a different opinion "trolls" to try and discredit people with different opinions. It's the same people who think Thomas has done a great job in NY and the Knicks are in better shape than the Celtics.

Just as Wally's positive influence has nothing to do with his skin color - Blount's negative attitude also has nothing to do with race.

Pierce had a great attitude pre-trade and an even better one post-trade. The whole dynamic of the team is better post trade. And not because of race. Try and stick to basketball.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> Pierce has never had a two week stretch where he shot lights out in the final minutes of games? That's news to me and everyone else that's watched him over the years.


You know that wasn't what I was talking about. When was the last time Pierce had 14 of 16 games (or whatever it was) of 30+ points?



> Pierce's scoring numbers went up because he was asked to do what both LeBron James and Kobe Bryant do, run the offense as the primary scoring option, which meant that he took more shots than ever before (17.2 FGA and 21.5 poss./g pre-trade to 20.9 FGA & 25.8 poss/g post-trade). During February (you know, the month where he put on the Superman act? The month where Wally was "still adjusting to the offense"?) Pierce averaged 23.5 FGA/g and 29 poss/g (!). Care to guess why he suddenly put up those numbers?


If we're winning with Pierce firing away, then I don't really care how it's getting done. If we're winning with him hoisting up shots because Wally's "still adjusting," that works for me. Of course, you can't be expected to do that on a consistent basis.



> If Pierce took that many shots and used up that many possessions every game he'd score 33.5 p/g. Interestingly enough, ever since Wally "stepped up his game" Pierce has gone back to being the player he always was, and suddenly Boston's a mediocre team again. But I suppose that's just a coincidence.


Boston was going to be a mediocre/bad team this year with Davis/Blount/Banks/Reed, and swapping Davis for Szczerbiak (fairly equal players) isn't going to dramatically change that. What matters is the guys love him, they say the ball movement has improved a lot, and _most of all_, Pierce loves playing with him. And it's nice to have Blount & his attitude out of the door. Banks is a write off because Glenn was never going to give him a real shot anyways, and Reed was...Reed. DA's obviously still building with Pierce in mind, otherwise this trade, indeed, would be garbage.



> Did you, after the trade, claim that Pierce was "unhappy" and "moping"? No? So I guess you aren't included, are you?


No, but there's these things called "mistakes." People sometimes make them. I'm just clarifying my stance.

See, I can be cynical, too.


----------



## Delontes Herpes (May 11, 2005)

The point was that Pierce had such a high scoring stretch not because he has such a great supporting cast but rather because he needed to carry more of the offensive load and therefore took more shots.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

Wally's averaging like, 3ppg less than Ricky did.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

ok...im not going to say that i like wally any more than before but if davis was messing with team chemistry and pierce really wasnt happy then i see why they got rid of him...but my BIGGEST arguement is that ron artest was available at the time we wanted to trade davis...i know ainge probably made a run at artest but to me not hard anough...id give up davis, west and/or a first rounder for artest...as good of a player that delonte is artest is a top 10/12 player in the nba...yea attitude problems whatever id risk it to have pierce and artest on the same team...would u rather have a team of west wally pierce or greene artest pierce etc...we would have been a much much better defensive team and just about the same offensively...if davis had to go then he had to go but id give up whatever else to have artest and become an instant contender in the east


----------



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

P-Dub34 said:


> Wally's averaging like, 3ppg less than Ricky did.


Does that change the fact that Pierce averaged 33 p/g because he was shooting all the time? This is why I said the change hasn't done anything for either team. Before the trade Boston needed Pierce to play like Bryant or James to have a chance against good teams, after the trade they need Pierce to play like Bryant or James to have a chance against good teams. *shrug* The real difference is that they're now in a holding pattern in the bottom half of the eastern conference for the immediate future, which will lead (eventually) to Pierce playing someplace else so that he doesn't end up like Karl Malone. The Celtics have nothing else to trade.


----------



## vandyke (Jan 8, 2004)

P-Dub34 said:


> Wally's averaging like, 3ppg less than Ricky did.


So, you can't measure everything in just ppg, bottom line is and you can take a poll if you would like on who is a better all around basketball player Ricky or Wally. Not the most athletically talented because of course that is Ricky, but who when everything is counted, all the intangibles that go into what makes a player good who is the better player, and of course Wally is the better all around player and this trade boils down to trading Ricky for Wally and everyone else, Banks, Reed, Blount, Olowakandi, draft picks are just throw ins. If you asked around the league as to who was the best player then it would have to be Wally wouldn't it? Of course the Celtics aren't where they need to be yet but this trade makes them a better team. (period)


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

vandyke said:


> So, you can't measure everything in just ppg, bottom line is and you can take a poll if you would like on who is a better all around basketball player Ricky or Wally. Not the most athletically talented because of course that is Ricky, but who when everything is counted, all the intangibles that go into what makes a player good who is the better player, and of course Wally is the better all around player and this trade boils down to trading Ricky for Wally and everyone else, Banks, Reed, Blount, Olowakandi, draft picks are just throw ins. If you asked around the league as to who was the best player then it would have to be Wally wouldn't it? Of course the Celtics aren't where they need to be yet but this trade makes them a better team. (period)


excpept that Kandi's contract is expiring and Blount's is not in the near future. The MINN draft pick could end up being much more than a "throw in" especially if they trade KG. Also see below and tell me if you miss stuff like this:










I don't.


----------



## vandyke (Jan 8, 2004)

Causeway said:


> excpept that Kandi's contract is expiring and Blount's is not in the near future. The MINN draft pick could end up being much more than a "throw in" especially if they trade KG. Also see below and tell me if you miss stuff like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Exactly so that makes it a win-win-win, plus the bottom line that Wally is a better player than Ricky.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

vandyke said:


> Exactly so that makes it a win-win-win, plus the bottom line that Wally is a better player than Ricky.


Agreed!


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

Vandyke, you missed my point...totally...


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

P-Dub34 said:


> Vandyke, you missed my point...totally...


Yeah, I was reading his post thinking that he was agreeing with you.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

http://basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2967809&postcount=2

I can't be the only one who sees Wally and Raef up there with Pierce...no?

Also, no Ricky has not played as well as he's played here, but neither has Wally, so you can't really use that against Ricky.

The Wolves got upgrades at four positions, and no matter how "bad" those four guys are, they were still a upgrade. 

Wally or no Wally, the Wolves don't have anyone on that roster that is worth a damn outside KG pre-trade.


----------



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

aquaitious said:


> The Wolves got upgrades at four positions, and no matter how "bad" those four guys are, they were still a upgrade.
> 
> Wally or no Wally, the Wolves don't have anyone on that roster that is worth a damn outside KG pre-trade.


That's a sad but true sort of thing. It's why I penciled them in as a 40 win team in the preseason, but Jaric has been even worse than I expected, and he's been getting too much run.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> Also, no Ricky has not played as well as he's played here, but neither has Wally, so you can't really use that against Ricky.


I'd make the argument that Wally has played better than Ricky post-trade.



> Wally or no Wally, the Wolves don't have anyone on that roster that is worth a damn outside KG pre-trade.


Ouch. Good to know we traded for a guy who wasn't worth a damn and gave up our second best player doing it.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

aquaitious said:


> http://basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2967809&postcount=2
> 
> I can't be the only one who sees Wally and Raef up there with Pierce...no?
> 
> The Wolves got upgrades at four positions, and no matter how "bad" those four guys are, they were still a upgrade.



agreed agreed agreed agreed...once the wolves get a full preseason wit the current team they have they should be all set as long as they dont trade KG...yes maybe theyve been puttin up losses now but look at the 4 celts every game they seem to combine for 50 pts 20 rebs and 15 asts. a full training camp and preseason and that team will be very very good...AND we have wallys huge contract for the next 4 yrs...we r crippled making any trades in the next few yrs unless it includes wally raef or paul


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> a full training camp and preseason and that team will be very very good...


"very very good"? I don't think so. They can be play better than they are now. But with the roster they have they will never be very very good - even with a full training camp and preseason. And Blount is a cancer. I don't care what numbers he puts up once every 10 games or so. He's bad to have on a team.

The grass is not always greener. We are in much better shape than MINN.


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

Wow, I'm totally shocked people don't see at this point that this was a good trade. Sorry pessimists but the Celtics TEAM has spoken themselves and they all LOVE what Wally has brought to the team. Blount is gone thank goodness. Marcus I liked a lot but he needed a chance and it wasn't coming here. I guess it doesn't matter if your not happy with it though because the Celtics players are and that's what really matters. This is a happy team and they are beginning to gel more and more as the young guys get experience. I like this team a lot and with a vet pass first PG I think they become very good.


----------



## vandyke (Jan 8, 2004)

P-Dub34 said:


> Vandyke, you missed my point...totally...


You're right, I didn't read the previous posts. I did miss your point.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

whiterhino said:


> Wow, I'm totally shocked people don't see at this point that this was a good trade. Sorry pessimists but the Celtics TEAM has spoken themselves and they all LOVE what Wally has brought to the team. Blount is gone thank goodness. Marcus I liked a lot but he needed a chance and it wasn't coming here. I guess it doesn't matter if your not happy with it though because the Celtics players are and that's what really matters. This is a happy team and they are beginning to gel more and more as the young guys get experience. I like this team a lot and with a vet pass first PG I think they become very good.


 :clap:


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

*Wally happy with Celtics*



> "I love Boston," Szczerbiak said. "I'm enjoying my new teammates, my new city, my new town. I'm looking to a lot of good things happening here in the future."





> Szczerbiak was averaging a career-best 20.1 points when the Timberwolves traded him to the Celtics for Ricky Davis on Jan. 26. It was a strange trade, primarily designed to shake up the chemistry of two teams who needed some shaking. Suffice it to say, it hasn't made Minnesota any better. And though Boston is having a tough year, too, down the road it should get better by putting a marksman of Szczerbiak's caliber in a mix with Paul Pierce and Boston's promising youngsters.
> 
> "The trade kind of opens up where we need to go as a team," said Celtics coach Doc Rivers. "It's a quirky combination because they're both the same position and every night one of the guys has to guard a two-guard.
> 
> ...


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

There is undeniable chemistry between Paul & Wally, whether you like him or not, if you deny the chemistry you are just lieing to yourself.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

and chemistry counts...for a lot.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> There is undeniable chemistry between Paul & Wally, whether you like him or not, if you deny the chemistry you are just lieing to yourself.


Been saying that all along. Apparently that's unimportant, though.


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

P-Dub34 said:


> Been saying that all along. Apparently that's unimportant, though.


To some who don't understand I guess, but in basketball chemistry is THE MOST IMPORTANT thing to have if you want to win.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Agreed. But let's not forget that Wally is white. Others certainly won't let us forget. To some people in here that is more important than anything. If he was not white there would not be debate on his value here and the chemistry he has with Pierce and the Celtics.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

as ive said before...minnesota definitely got more talent out of the trade than we did...but...if the trade was an addition by subtraction sort of thing then ok i understand it more now...i still stand by my arguement though that we should have gone after artest harder than we did and given up anything that we had to...pierce + artest = instant contender in the east...and winning can build chemistry between anyone...except kobe and shaq


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

P-Dub34 said:


> I'd make the argument that Wally has played better than Ricky post-trade.


I was expecting more from him. He's not doing bad, but I thought his play could be better.



P-Dub34 said:


> Ouch. Good to know we traded for a guy who wasn't worth a damn and gave up our second best player doing it.


I was actually excluding Wally from that.



The Wolves are a mess right now, and would really benefit from having a full season with each other and some more upgrades on all positions.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> I was expecting more from him. He's not doing bad, but I thought his play could be better.


As well, I expected more from Wally. But he has really been starting to play better and get back to more efficient %'s lately.



> pierce + artest = instant contender in the east...


Please. Sacto has a better looking team than we do and would they be instant contenders in the East? No.


----------



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

P-Dub34 said:


> As well, I expected more from Wally. But he has really been starting to play better and get back to more efficient %'s lately.


Except at the end of tight games, when his shooting stroke deserts him. :bsmile:


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

Judging by the percentages, Paul Pierce - one of the most clutch players in the NBA - loses his shooting stroke during crunchtime, too.


----------



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

whiterhino said:


> To some who don't understand I guess, but in basketball chemistry is THE MOST IMPORTANT thing to have if you want to win.


I'm sure Ernest Brown was great for team chemistry, everyone seemed to love him. He also couldn't ball to save his life. Chemistry is _not_ the most important thing to have. Because if you suck you suck, no matter how much chemistry you have. And in this case the Celtics have a second option whose pressure play makes Peja Stojakovic look like Larry Bird. And as Minnesota fans can tell you, that's a recipe for four and outs in the postseason. :bsmile:

I don't care about Dr. Wally's chemistry set, the fact is that at the end of close games he makes the sorts of mistakes that even Gerald Green doesn't (seriously, I've had three lifetimes worth of Szczerbiak lumbering into the lane and going up soft producing a block and an opposition fast break, those are absolute killers, but hey, he's white, so he must have hoops IQ). And he gets _worse_ in the postseason. Thankfully the Celtics won't have to worry about that anytime in the next two or three years.



P-Dub 34 said:


> Judging by the percentages, Paul Pierce - one of the most clutch players in the NBA - loses his shooting stroke during crunchtime, too.


Pierce's aFG% in those situations is 30 points better than Szczerbiak's. And while he's been great this year, historically he's been streaky. He was huge in the 2002 playoffs, but atrocious during the 2003-04 season. Unlike some other players, though, Pierce has consistently improved in this regard over the course of his career.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> but hey, he's white, so he must have hoops IQ).


Straying from the topic at hand somewhat, why do you bring race up so much? Are you black?


----------



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

I do it because I know it annoys the sorts of people that complain about not being allowed to use the word ******. Unfortunately too many of those ignoramuses are Celtics fans and our present owners are determined to cater to that base element.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

Well, I don't fit into your category of people you wish to annoy, and your bringing up race in seemingly every post pertaining to a white guy gets tiresome.

BTW - people need to explain these 82games stats to me. I've never really paid any attention to them. I generally like to gather what I can from watching the games, but having a working knowledge of these statistics would be terrific.


----------



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

You'll never hear me mention it in regards players that are good (like Nash, Nowitzki, et al), or are diamonds in the rough, like David Lee (that kid can seriously ball off the bench) or Darko Milicic (now that he's actually getting some burn and showing that he's useful). Show me an overrated player that gets unwarranted praise for his "hoops IQ", or a hideously bad one that gets the same unwarranted praise, well, in those instances it's absolutely true. You'll never see me call the Nazr Mohammeds or Malik Roses of the world anything but mediocrities, because that's what they are. Ironically enough, that particular element of Celtic fandom I'm referring to never bats an eyelash when I refer to Drew Gooden or Antoine Walker as overrated mediocrities, but go ballistic when I make the same observation of Szczerbiak and loudly proclaim that _I'm_ the one with the problem. Funny, they only seem to notice my criticism when the player I'm making fun of is Caucasian. Did they get up in arms about any of my Tony Allen jokes? Did they throw a fit over my dissing of Brandon Hunter? Did they complain any of the 479 times I posted that infamous photo of Mark Blount and Inflatable Elvis (along with my wish that we could dress Inflatable Elvis for games, instead)? Did they bat an eyelash when I cursed out Waltah? Nope. Make a Scalabrine joke, on the other hand, and they throw a fit and declare that my dislike of his atrocious play is evidence of _my_ prejudice. Apparently in their twisted little universe making fun of Caucasian players is proof of racism, while making fun of African-American ones is OK.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

I think it's more your "******" comments (and the like) that offend people. To be clear, you don't offend me with your comments; rather, they just get...old.


----------



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

The word _honky_ is a good and decent word, and I refuse to allow race-trolls to strip it from the English language. And whether the causeways of this world like it or not, the All Honky Disaster Zone Team is here to stay. :bsmile:


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

ehmunro said:


> The word _honky_ is a good and decent word, and I refuse to allow race-trolls to strip it from the English language. And whether the causeways of this world like it or not, the All Honky Disaster Zone Team is here to stay. :bsmile:


why are you bringing me into your discussion with P-DUB? and the fact that you will continue your racist rants is not surprising to anyone. 



ehmunro said:


> Ironically enough, that particular element of Celtic fandom I'm referring to never bats an eyelash when I refer to Drew Gooden or Antoine Walker as overrated mediocrities, but go ballistic when I make the same observation of Szczerbiak and loudly proclaim that I'm the one with the problem. Funny, they only seem to notice my criticism when the player I'm making fun of is Caucasian. Did they get up in arms about any of my Tony Allen jokes? Did they throw a fit over my dissing of Brandon Hunter? Did they complain any of the 479 times I posted that infamous photo of Mark Blount and Inflatable Elvis (along with my wish that we could dress Inflatable Elvis for games, instead)? Did they bat an eyelash when I cursed out Waltah? Nope.


this weak defense would hold some water if when you bashed the Antoine Walker's etc. you also mentioned race. But race only comes up when you have an issue with white players. And it comes up with you over and over and over again.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

I need to know when the 2006 Boston Hoops awards are. NOW!


----------



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

aquaitious said:


> I need to know when the 2006 Boston Hoops awards are. NOW!


We're going to add some new teams this year, we're soliciting suggestions for team names for the offensive ineptitude all stars and the felony all stars.


----------

