# Pierce Set To Announce Three Year Extension



## MrCharisma (Feb 6, 2005)

> With trade rumors continually swirling involving his name, it appears that Paul Pierce may finally be able to put the uncertainty about his future to rest.
> 
> According to the Boston Herald, Pierce and the Celtics are finalizing some details then it's expected that an announcement will be made that Pierce has agreed to a three-year extension with the club.
> 
> ...


link


----------



## Delontes Herpes (May 11, 2005)

*Re: - Pierce Set To Announce Three Year Extension -*

Great f'n news


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

*Re: - Pierce Set To Announce Three Year Extension -*

Nice to hear. Not a shocker. So what's the _next_ move?


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

*Re: - Pierce Set To Announce Three Year Extension -*



Causeway said:


> Nice to hear. Not a shocker. So what's the _next_ move?



*cough* iverson *cough*


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

*Re: - Pierce Set To Announce Three Year Extension -*

I think so #1AW.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

*Re: - Pierce Set To Announce Three Year Extension -*



Causeway said:


> I think so #1AW.




:gopray:


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

*Re: - Pierce Set To Announce Three Year Extension -*



#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> *cough* iverson *cough*


Ideally, we would trade for Iverson only to trade him for Kevin Garnett.

ideally, of course


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

*Re: - Pierce Set To Announce Three Year Extension -*



Premier said:


> Ideally, we would trade for Iverson only to trade him for Kevin Garnett.
> 
> ideally, of course




see...heres what i dont get...everyone says oooooo i dont want iverson he's too old...but everyone sounds like theyd love to get KG...and iverson is not even 1 year older than KG...personally id be ecstatic with either of them they are both superstars and hall of famers...but i dont get the reluctancy that iverson is somehow over the hill....sure he takes quite a beating game in and game out but he's proven that he can play through it its not like hes grant hill who gets breathed on and doesnt play for 60 games


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

*Re: - Pierce Set To Announce Three Year Extension -*



#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> see...heres what i dont get...everyone says oooooo i dont want iverson he's too old...but everyone sounds like theyd love to get KG...and iverson is not even 1 year older than KG...personally id be ecstatic with either of them they are both superstars and hall of famers...but i dont get the reluctancy that iverson is somehow over the hill....sure he takes quite a beating game in and game out but he's proven that he can play through it its not like hes grant hill who gets breathed on and doesnt play for 60 games


Garnett fills a much more important need [interior defense, post scoring, rebounding], is much more versatile, and is a better fit for Paul Pierce and Doc Rivers [he streches the defense]. Garnett is also a better player overall [top four in the NBA, in my opinion].


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

*Re: - Pierce Set To Announce Three Year Extension -*



Premier said:


> Garnett fills a much more important need [interior defense, post scoring, rebounding], is much more versatile, and is a better fit for Paul Pierce and Doc Rivers [he streches the defense]. Garnett is also a better player overall [top four in the NBA, in my opinion].




our interior defense and rebounding is all set with theo ratliff...as long as he stays healthy...and who would really need post scoring if you have pierce and AI on the wings...the bulls won 6 championships without any post scoring threat to speak of


----------



## LX (Oct 14, 2004)

*Re: - Pierce Set To Announce Three Year Extension -*



#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> our interior defense and rebounding is all set with theo ratliff...as long as he stays healthy...and who would really need post scoring if you have pierce and AI on the wings...the bulls won 6 championships without any post scoring threat to speak of


No. Just no. 

Ratliff is WAY past his prime. Our interior defense and rebounding isn't even close to being set. 

That's a pretty big if, considering he hasn't been healthy for a full season 03-04, and has missed over 50 games the last 2 season. 

And, yes you would need post scoring with AI and Pierce on the wings. You can't begin to compare them to the Bulls. The Bulls were one of the best defensive teams in history, and the Michael Jordan + Scottie Pippen combination is matched by none. 

Take notice how every team that has won a championship in the last decade have all had legitimate post presences. 

2006- Miami Heat- Shaq
2005- San Antonio Spurs- Duncan
2004- Detroit Pistons- 'Sheed
2003- San Antonio Spurs- Duncan and Robinson
2002- Lakers- Shaq
2001- Lakers- Shaq
2000- Lakers- Shaq
1999- Spurs- Duncan and Robinson

You have to go all the way back to the 1998 Bulls to find a team that won without a legitimate offensive post presence. And the '98 Bulls team would be far superior to a Pierce + Iverson wing combination.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

*Re: - Pierce Set To Announce Three Year Extension -*



#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> our interior defense and rebounding is all set with theo ratliff...as long as he stays healthy...and who would really need post scoring if you have pierce and AI on the wings...the bulls won 6 championships without any post scoring threat to speak of


Ratliff is a shadow of his former self. His post defense is below average even when he is healthy.


----------



## cgcatsfan (Jun 10, 2005)

*Re: - Pierce Set To Announce Three Year Extension -*



#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> see...heres what i dont get...everyone says oooooo i dont want iverson he's too old...but everyone sounds like theyd love to get KG...and iverson is not even 1 year older than KG...personally id be ecstatic with either of them they are both superstars and hall of famers...but i dont get the reluctancy that iverson is somehow over the hill....sure he takes quite a beating game in and game out but he's proven that he can play through it its not like hes grant hill who gets breathed on and doesnt play for 60 games


My concerns with Iverson are less about age and more about attitude and willingness to give up some limelight in order to propel the team forward. With KG, I just don't have the same concern. 
If we get either KG/Iverson, it will give the youngsters time to develop and keep Paul from exercising the CERTAIN early out clause in the new contract.
With Telfair and Rondo (Rondo is kicking butt in summer league), I'd say KG if we can get him.


----------



## agoo (Jun 1, 2003)

*Re: - Pierce Set To Announce Three Year Extension -*



#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> see...heres what i dont get...everyone says oooooo i dont want iverson he's too old...but everyone sounds like theyd love to get KG...and iverson is not even 1 year older than KG...personally id be ecstatic with either of them they are both superstars and hall of famers...but i dont get the reluctancy that iverson is somehow over the hill....sure he takes quite a beating game in and game out but he's proven that he can play through it its not like hes grant hill who gets breathed on and doesnt play for 60 games


Grant Hill has serious chronic issues and isn't relivent in this case.

Allen Iverson is a little guard who gets beat up every game. Its how he plays. The track record for little guards who get beat up every game isn't good as they usually fall of quickly.

Also, KG's last three years (76-82-82). Allen Iverson's last three years (72-75-48). From the 99-00, KG missed a grand total of 9 games. AI missed 96 in the same period.

And as others said KG big, AI small.


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

KG gives you more of a chance to contend with Pierce than Iverson does. I mean, unless some of your younger guys (that you still have) grow up real fast and play great with Pierce and AI, then maybe. But that is unlikely.

But I wouldn't give up your future for something that is not going to get you anywhere that far. I also wouldn't give up Green.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

dear everybody, 

Im in no way saying that i would rather have AI over KG...in fact i would much rather have KG...but realistically we are probably not going to get KG so what im saying is id rather hvae AI over nothing. and having AI also means no more wally and his waste of a kabillion dollars.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

*Re: - Pierce Set To Announce Three Year Extension -*



agoo101284 said:


> Grant Hill has serious chronic issues and isn't relivent in this case.
> 
> Allen Iverson is a little guard who gets beat up every game. Its how he plays. The track record for little guards who get beat up every game isn't good as they usually fall of quickly.
> 
> ...


exactly. If the choice were between KG and AI I'd be all over KG. I would certainly be willing to give up more to get KG over AI. In addition to the durability factor KG is _arguably _ the best player in the NBA.


----------



## AMΣRICAN GOD™ (Jun 4, 2005)

Forwards have longer careers than guards I believe...

KG>Celtics ..... I think if he had the choice, he'd rather go to the Bulls than the C's. Sure, we have a better future, but the Bulls have better talent for RIGHT NOW.

Oh, and Joe, check yo' Myspace.


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> dear everybody,
> 
> Im in no way saying that i would rather have AI over KG...in fact i would much rather have KG...but realistically we are probably not going to get KG so what im saying is id rather hvae AI over nothing. and having AI also means no more wally and his waste of a kabillion dollars.



But you'd rather give up your team's future for AI though when you won't contend with him? That was part of the point I was making.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

AMΣRICAN GOD™ said:


> KG>Celtics ..... I think if he had the choice, he'd rather go to the Bulls than the C's. Sure, we have a better future, but the Bulls have better talent for RIGHT NOW.


With Ben Wallace and PJ Brown, it seems the Bulls have given up on KG [after offering Deng, Gordon, #2, and #16, allegedly [w/ salary filler such as Tyson Chandler]]. The Celtics, Hawks, and Warriors likely have the best package for KG [young players, picks], but the Hawks cannot make any trade until their ownership situation is resolved.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

I don't even want to think about getting KG. Damn that would be sweet.


----------



## BostonBasketball (Jan 10, 2005)

I have a hard time believing KG is going to be traded this offseason considering that they just signed Mike James, drafted Foye and still have Ricky. I give it one more year.


----------



## AMΣRICAN GOD™ (Jun 4, 2005)

Premier said:


> With Ben Wallace and PJ Brown, it seems the Bulls have given up on KG [after offering Deng, Gordon, #2, and #16, allegedly [w/ salary filler such as Tyson Chandler]]. The Celtics, Hawks, and Warriors likely have the best package for KG [young players, picks], but the Hawks cannot make any trade until their ownership situation is resolved.


Do we actually have a chance of landing KG? I haven't heard our names anywhere concerning him.


----------



## BackwoodsBum (Jul 2, 2003)

While there is no question that I would rather have Garnett than AI, I don't realistically expect the C's to have any chance to get KG so I would be more than happy with a trade for Iverson as long as we don't give up too much to get him. 

I couldn't stand Iverson when he came into the league, but too me he has matured greatly in thelast few years so I'm not worried about his attitude. Sure, he's not a model citizen by any accounts, but look at how many past Celtics were labelled as "head cases", "troublemakers", etc. before coming to the C's. Most recently you could look at Ricky Davis. He turned out pretty good for the C's IMHO. I think Iverson will look at any trade as a chance to prove himself so I'm all for giving him a chance to do it here.


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

AMΣRICAN GOD™ said:


> Do we actually have a chance of landing KG? I haven't heard our names anywhere concerning him.



I think Minnesota is going to hold on to him...again. Maybe till after this yr if he says he wants to leave. Which may happen with another losing season.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

Dissonance19 said:


> But you'd rather give up your team's future for AI though when you won't contend with him? That was part of the point I was making.



here is the BIGGEST misconception of a trade for AI...95% of things i read about that trade include "would you give up your future for him"...WHO IS GIVING UP THE FUTURE???...we have about 10 "young guys" i HARDLY think giving up 2 of them for AI will mess up our future...actually i believe it will _help_ our future by giving the other 8 or so young guys playoff experience that they can learn from. ive been an advocat of giving up wally al and west for AI...that leaves us with Green, telfair, perk, allen, rondo, gomes, jones and powe...including whatever draft picks we get over the next 2 years...i think our future will be fine


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> here is the BIGGEST misconception of a trade for AI...95% of things i read about that trade include "would you give up your future for him"...WHO IS GIVING UP THE FUTURE???...we have about 10 "young guys" i HARDLY think giving up 2 of them for AI will mess up our future...actually i believe it will _help_ our future by giving the other 8 or so young guys playoff experience that they can learn from. ive been an advocat of giving up wally al and west for AI...that leaves us with Green, telfair, perk, allen, rondo, gomes, jones and powe...including whatever draft picks we get over the next 2 years...i think our future will be fine



Oh yeah? They want and may get most of the important young guys with any real future. Don't think you're just giving up Al, Wally and West. That WILL NOT get it done. They probably don't even want West.  They'll want Green, Wally and one of the PGs between Telfair and Rondo, and God knows what else. Even if not them, they will most likely want Green and he has most potential maybe besides Telfair out of anyone. They're basically giving up their franchise to get a future and are going to want a lot. You're not going to get him with some cheap deal though.


----------



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

*Re: - Pierce Set To Announce Three Year Extension -*



Premier said:


> Ideally, we would trade for Iverson only to trade him for Kevin Garnett.
> 
> ideally, of course


Garnett's off the market and Bird's already demonstrated that he would rather give a player away for nothing than trade within the conference (i.e. no Jermaine O'Neal). That pretty well leaves only one option.



LX said:


> Take notice how every team that has won a championship in the last decade have all had legitimate post presences.


The proper way of expressing this tautology is "Notice that seven of the last eight titles were won by teams with the two most dominant players of this era, Shaq & Tim Duncan". Rasheed Wallace isn't a "post presence", he's a perimeter 4. We can't get Shaq or Duncan, so we have to find another way to improve. We certainly have no franchise big men, and a zero percent chance of getting one if we stand pat. So the options are to improve or stay where we are praying that we get lucky with the ping pong balls and escape No Man's Land.



Dissonance19 said:


> But you'd rather give up your team's future for AI though when you won't contend with him?


There are no moves that can guarantee a title. If the perfect is the only acceptable solution, why would you stand pat when you won't contend doing it? Why would you make any move if you won't contend making it? The perfect is the absolute enemy of the good. Will Iverson make the Celtics contenders? No. But it puts them in a position where they really would be "one player away".


----------



## cgcatsfan (Jun 10, 2005)

Dissonance19 said:


> Oh yeah? They want and may get most of the important young guys with any real future. Don't think you're just giving up Al, Wally and West. That WILL NOT get it done. They probably don't even want West. They'll want Green, Wally and one of the PGs between Telfair and Rondo, and God knows what else. Even if not them, they will most likely want Green and he has most potential maybe besides Telfair out of anyone. They're basically giving up their franchise to get a future and are going to want a lot. You're not going to get him with some cheap deal though.


Wally, Al and West do not constitute a cheap deal. If they were that unreasonable, I have to hope that Ainge would JUST SAY NO....
AI is amazing, but there is a tipping point.
His age and injuries are a factor.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

Dissonance19 said:


> Oh yeah? They want and may get most of the important young guys with any real future. Don't think you're just giving up Al, Wally and West. That WILL NOT get it done. *They probably don't even want West. * They'll want Green, Wally and one of the PGs between Telfair and Rondo, and God knows what else. Even if not them, they will most likely want Green and he has most potential maybe besides Telfair out of anyone. They're basically giving up their franchise to get a future and are going to want a lot. You're not going to get him with some cheap deal though.



uhhhh west is the player they probably want the most...hes a local guy in philly whos a fan favorite and a combo guard to replace AI, and AL can be groomed by webber and maybe turn into something for them...and wally can still score in the nba...philly isnt stupid they know they are not going to get 3 or 4 top flight young guys for iverson...i think you are overrating iversons value quite a bit...especially when everyone knows hes on the block its not like you have to overwhelm philly to get them to let go of him...they want to move him and everyone knows that


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Bottom line for me is Iverson is on the floor less and less every year. A healthy AI could be interesting. The current banged up version I don't think is worth it for us.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

keep in mind tho that he is constantly banged up because defenses throw 3 and 4 guys at him everytime down the court...what players have played with iverson on the court eric snow and aaron mckie??? they were open everytime down the court because they cant shoot and opposing teams were triple teaming AI...they wont be able to do that with pierce on the other end of the court...the sixers thought they solved that problem with webber but imo hes too far on the way down to warrant defenses trying to stop him...with pierce and a spot up shooter like gomes on the floor at the same time, iverson wont get beat up nearly as much


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

That's part of the reason. The other part is the way he plays - and that will not change. Also he can't undo the years of beatings he has taken. He is wearing down.


----------



## agoo (Jun 1, 2003)

He's hurt because he's little and he's always driving into the lane to go up against guys who have 10 to 12 inches and 50 to 100 pounds on him. That won't change becuase its how he plays.


----------



## KingHandles (Mar 19, 2005)

Very happy to hear the news on Pierce. 

I'm eager as hell for the next move. I pray it's not Iverson just because I don't like him, and he's going down fast. We would only get 2-3 good years out of him, then what? He's not going to be of any value after that. I'm fine watching this team we have now for a year, then going from there. If Ainge can keep working the magic he has been though, by all means make a move. [No causeway, I do not want to join you club] :wink:


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

KingHandles said:


> Very happy to hear the news on Pierce.
> 
> I'm eager as hell for the next move. I pray it's not Iverson just because I don't like him, and he's going down fast. We would only get 2-3 good years out of him, then what? He's not going to be of any value after that. I'm fine watching this team we have now for a year, then going from there. If Ainge can keep working the magic he has been though, by all means make a move. [*No causeway, I do not want to join you club*] :wink:


No problem. I anticipate soon a surge in bandwagon members - I'll save you a spot!


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

Now that Pierce has signed an extension, could it possibly mean that Danny has a deal that's almost completed? It just seems too short a time for Pierce to sign with the team that he had second guesses about two weeks ago.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

aquaitious said:


> Now that Pierce has signed an extension, could it possibly mean that Danny has a deal that's almost completed? It just seems too short a time for Pierce to sign with the team that he had second guesses about two weeks ago.



this has to be the case...there is NO WAY that pierce signs a 3 yr extension which keeps him here for 5 more seasons without a guarantee from danny that we will be contending and it will be soon...yay :biggrin:


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Causeway said:


> No problem. I anticipate soon a surge in bandwagon members - I'll save you a spot!


Ainge has not justified my potential inclusion into that club, in my opinion. He was close [before the Wally trade], but he hasn't yet. I'm going to wait until his next move or so.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

Premier said:


> Ainge has not justified my potential inclusion into that club, in my opinion. He was close [before the Wally trade], but he hasn't yet. I'm going to wait until his next move or so.




yeaaaa same here...everyone praises ainge for being able to move raef and get rid of dickau but lets not forget those were 2 of his own mistakes...i give ppl credit for fixing their mistakes but not as much as if they never would have made them in the first place...and now he has to do soemthing to fix this wally trade


----------



## Pain5155 (May 28, 2006)

20 mill a year is ludacris.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

Pain5155 said:


> 20 mill a year is ludacris.




its the going rate...personally i think 5 million a year is ludicrous (ludacris is a rapper)...but if thats what superstars get then thats what pierce is going to get


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> yeaaaa same here...everyone praises ainge for being able to move raef and get rid of dickau but lets not forget those were 2 of his own mistakes...i give ppl credit for fixing their mistakes but not as much as if they never would have made them in the first place...and now he has to do soemthing to fix this wally trade


There was no way Blount was getting moved without taking on something. Ainge is very good - the best GM we've had in a long time. But give the guy a break. People were not knocking down his door to take on Stone Hands.

As far as Raef - we got a hell of a lot more then just Raef in that first Walker trade. You need to look at the sum of a move - not just the one part you may not like.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

Causeway said:


> There was no way Blount was getting moved without taking on something. Ainge is very good - the best GM we've had in a long time. But give the guy a break. People were not knocking down his door to take on Stone Hands.
> 
> As far as Raef - we got a hell of a lot more then just Raef in that first Walker trade. You need to look at the sum of a move - not just the one part you may not like.


Like Jiri Welsch? _The_ key to the trade. We also got Chris Mills which landed [strike]us[/strike] Detriot a ring. Oh and a 1st rounder that turned out to be Allen/West in a draft where draft picks were sold.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

aquaitious said:


> Like Jiri Welsch? _The_ key to the trade. We also got Chris Mills which landed [strike]us[/strike] Detriot a ring. Oh and a 1st rounder that turned out to be Allen/West in a draft where draft picks were sold.


I'd say West has turned out to be very nice for us. I also think Allen still has a very good shot to be a good to great NBA player. The net result is in our favor.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

Causeway said:


> I'd say West has turned out to be very nice for us. I also think Allen still has a very good shot to be a good to great NBA player. The net result is in our favor.


So why not buy the pick? Nets sold theirs to Portland. We could have kept talent and added more to it.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

This has been discussed plenty - but my opinion is that Walker as a #1 or #2 option is not a good thing.


----------



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

aquaitious said:


> > *I also think Allen still has a very good shot*
> 
> 
> So why not buy the pick? Nets sold theirs to Portland. We could have kept talent and added more to it.


I can't believe you let that remark sneak past. Allen does _not_ have a very good shot. Something he should be thankful for, elsewise he'd still be rotting in the Cook County lockup. :bsmile:

Also the four picks in front of Boston's 24/25 picks were auctioned off. And Ainge's big mistake that draft was in not taking Paxson's offer of #10 for Jiri and the two twentysomething picks. With #10 & #15 they could have had Swift & Jeffrerson, or promised the ten spot to Marvin Williams (another Ainge target) and convinced him to stay in the draft straight from high school. They could always have bought New Jersey, Utah's or Denver's pick later to use on West.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

But we would have still had Walker. Not good.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

Causeway said:


> This has been discussed plenty - but my opinion is that Walker as a #1 or #2 option is not a good thing.




Raef as a #2 option is an even worse thing...much worse...even a walker hater has to admit that


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> Raef as a #2 option is an even worse thing...much worse...even a walker hater has to admit that


That guy who plays for Portland?

But no - I do not agree.


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

He's locked up, great news for Celtics fans.........I really do think they intend on keeping him in green now and not trading him anytime soon. The way he played last season makes this great news.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

Pierce getting extended has to mean Ainge is focused on winning _now_. If not, why would Paul be wasting his time?


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

P-Dub34 said:



> Pierce getting extended has to mean Ainge is focused on winning _now_. If not, why would Paul be wasting his time?


Loyalty. See: KG.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Causeway said:


> But we would have still had Walker. Not good.


His contract was up in one more year. We made this trade because Wyc wanted to avoid the luxury tax with Chris Mills' contract being paid by the insurance company.


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

Premier said:


> Loyalty. See: KG.


I don't think so, yes Paul loves the Celts but he also Loves winning if he thought they were not going to get any better in the near future he would not be staying in Boston...he'd be heading home to the west coast.


----------

