What set us back in the 1990s

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fiercy. Show Fiercy's posts

    What set us back in the 1990s

    When Bird retired, the Celts tried to keep making the playoffs.

    Celtics management also didn't try to get anything for McHale or Parish via trade.

    Instead of rebuilding immediately, the Celtics signed guys like Xavier McDaniel and a 35-year old Dominique Wilkins.

    The Celtics wasted 3 years by signing those players.

    Eventually the Celts hit rock bottom in 1997.

     

    Danny Ainge is doing the right thing by doing the opposite of what the Celtics management in the 1990s did.

    Being a middle of the pack team or an 8th seed is worse than being a lottery team.

     

    That's why I don't think it makes sense if the Celts don't get rid of Hump and Bass on or before the trade deadline.

    Keeping both Hump and Bass, or just one of them, will make the Celts a better team, but better is not good at this stage of the rebuilding process.

     

    Every time the Celts play a team like the Spurs or Pacers the Celtics get exposed.

    The Celts just don't have the star power, shooters, and a quality Center.

    Guys like Spencer Hawes, Evan Turner, Larry Sanders, and Gordon Hayward will not put the Celts on the same level with the elite teams of the NBA today.

     

    The Celts are going to be a lottery team this season and next season.

    It's reality.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from puddinpuddin. Show puddinpuddin's posts

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    In response to Fiercy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    When Bird retired, the Celts tried to keep making the playoffs.

    Celtics management also didn't try to get anything for McHale or Parish via trade.

    Instead of rebuilding immediately, the Celtics signed guys like Xavier McDaniel and a 35-year old Dominique Wilkins.

    The Celtics wasted 3 years by signing those players.

    Eventually the Celts hit rock bottom in 1997.

     

    Danny Ainge is doing the right thing by doing the opposite of what the Celtics management in the 1990s did.

    Being a middle of the pack team or an 8th seed is worse than being a lottery team.

     

    That's why I don't think it makes sense if the Celts don't get rid of Hump and Bass on or before the trade deadline.

    Keeping both Hump and Bass, or just one of them, will make the Celts a better team, but better is not good at this stage of the rebuilding process.

     

    Every time the Celts play a team like the Spurs or Pacers the Celtics get exposed.

    The Celts just don't have the star power, shooters, and a quality Center.

    Guys like Spencer Hawes, Evan Turner, Larry Sanders, and Gordon Hayward will not put the Celts on the same level with the elite teams of the NBA today.

     

    The Celts are going to be a lottery team this season and next season.

    It's reality.

    [/QUOTE]


    Well at least you aren't squalling about racism setting us back, making elite FAs difficult to sign.

    Thats your typical explanation for hard times in Beantown.

    Pud

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    Did Captain Obvious just finish reading a book called 'The History of the Boston Celtics' and decided now was the team he needed to repeat the things multiple people have discussed MANY times here in the past 7 years?

    I mean we know the guy wasn't old enough to remember the end of the big 3 era and didn't actually start WATCHING basketball until around the time Pierce was drafted and the Lakers three peated... but c'mon.

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    Coming Tomorrow: 'What set us back in the 1980s'

    Thread about the death of Len Bias or Bird/McHale injuries as Fierce reads more of his history book

    I guess when your life is so empty you need to make 1800 posts in 5 weeks on the internet you eventually just start to post the obvious.

    Fierce tell us more about the new CBA and how a team can sign another teams free agents for five years and why a sign and trade from the Celtics this summer isn't good for Humphries...18-2:-)

     

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from debrit. Show debrit's posts

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    In response to Fiercy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    When Bird retired, the Celts tried to keep making the playoffs.

    Celtics management also didn't try to get anything for McHale or Parish via trade.

    Instead of rebuilding immediately, the Celtics signed guys like Xavier McDaniel and a 35-year old Dominique Wilkins.

    The Celtics wasted 3 years by signing those players.

    Eventually the Celts hit rock bottom in 1997.

     

    Danny Ainge is doing the right thing by doing the opposite of what the Celtics management in the 1990s did.

    Being a middle of the pack team or an 8th seed is worse than being a lottery team.

     

    That's why I don't think it makes sense if the Celts don't get rid of Hump and Bass on or before the trade deadline.

    Keeping both Hump and Bass, or just one of them, will make the Celts a better team, but better is not good at this stage of the rebuilding process.

     

    Every time the Celts play a team like the Spurs or Pacers the Celtics get exposed.

    The Celts just don't have the star power, shooters, and a quality Center.

    Guys like Spencer Hawes, Evan Turner, Larry Sanders, and Gordon Hayward will not put the Celts on the same level with the elite teams of the NBA today.

     

    The Celts are going to be a lottery team this season and next season.

    It's reality.

    [/QUOTE]
    The celtics are 2 players away to become a contender.They need a center and a good wing shooter.They are better than lots of so called fans think.

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from scubber. Show scubber's posts

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    Seems to me in the 90s, it was all about those handful of players that you needed as foundation to win.  Who won in the 90s?  Jordan's Bulls, Olajuwon's Rockets, and Duncan's Spurs.  We tried very hard to get Duncan but it was not to be.  It did not matter who we were able to bring in, it would have been very difficult to beat those guys.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from puddinpuddin. Show puddinpuddin's posts

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    In response to debrit's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Fiercy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    When Bird retired, the Celts tried to keep making the playoffs.

    Celtics management also didn't try to get anything for McHale or Parish via trade.

    Instead of rebuilding immediately, the Celtics signed guys like Xavier McDaniel and a 35-year old Dominique Wilkins.

    The Celtics wasted 3 years by signing those players.

    Eventually the Celts hit rock bottom in 1997.

     

    Danny Ainge is doing the right thing by doing the opposite of what the Celtics management in the 1990s did.

    Being a middle of the pack team or an 8th seed is worse than being a lottery team.

     

    That's why I don't think it makes sense if the Celts don't get rid of Hump and Bass on or before the trade deadline.

    Keeping both Hump and Bass, or just one of them, will make the Celts a better team, but better is not good at this stage of the rebuilding process.

     

    Every time the Celts play a team like the Spurs or Pacers the Celtics get exposed.

    The Celts just don't have the star power, shooters, and a quality Center.

    Guys like Spencer Hawes, Evan Turner, Larry Sanders, and Gordon Hayward will not put the Celts on the same level with the elite teams of the NBA today.

     

    The Celts are going to be a lottery team this season and next season.

    It's reality.

    [/QUOTE]
    The celtics are 2 players away to become a contender.They need a center and a good wing shooter.They are better than lots of so called fans think.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Agreed.... Hibbert and LBJ and any three current Cs starters (plus current "bench") would make us contenders immediately.

    Lets make it happen... so called fans!

    Pud

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fiercy. Show Fiercy's posts

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    In response to debrit's comment:

     

    The celtics are 2 players away to become a contender.They need a center and a good wing shooter.They are better than lots of so called fans think.

    You're talking as if a quality Center and a good wing shooter is always available if you want one.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fiercy. Show Fiercy's posts

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    In response to rameakap's comment:

    Coming Tomorrow: 'What set us back in the 1980s'

    Thread about the death of Len Bias or Bird/McHale injuries as Fierce reads more of his history book

    I guess when your life is so empty you need to make 1800 posts in 5 weeks on the internet you eventually just start to post the obvious.

    Fierce tell us more about the new CBA and how a team can sign another teams free agents for five years and why a sign and trade from the Celtics this summer isn't good for Humphries...18-2:-)

    Clearly you know nothing about who I am, where I'm from, and how old I am.

    I'm not posting the obvious.

    You want to do a sign and trade for Hump.

    That's stupid.

    What if Hump opts not to ask for a sign and trade and just signs outright with another team?

    Celts get nothing, right?

     

    Learn from history, rame!

    Here:

    http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7341777/free-agent-david-west-signs-indiana-pacers

    The Indiana Pacers agreed on a two-year, $20 million deal with free-agent forward David West.

    The Hornets had been in discussions to send West to Boston in a sign-and-trade deal but NBA.com reported Sunday that those talks ended, which opened the door for Indiana to land West.

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fiercy. Show Fiercy's posts

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    The Hornets got nothing for David West when he signed outright with the Pacers back in 2011.

    Ainge can get something of value for Hump on or before the trade deadline because Hump is a very good player who can help a playoff team.

    So why not cash in on the opportunity?

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from CeltsFanInNH. Show CeltsFanInNH's posts

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    In response to debrit's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The celtics are 2 players away to become a contender.They need a center and a good wing shooter.They are better than lots of so called fans think.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That could be said about several other teams too. 

    I keep keep saying the new league rules make it very difficult to acquire those assets and then pay the players when they want raises.

    One key to signing free agents is being under the cap. The other is having players and being good enough to want free agents to come to your team. 

    Easier said then done. 

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fiercy. Show Fiercy's posts

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    In response to CeltsFanInNH's comment:

     

    That could be said about several other teams too. 

    I keep keep saying the new league rules make it very difficult to acquire those assets and then pay the players when they want raises.

    One key to signing free agents is being under the cap. The other is having players and being good enough to want free agents to come to your team. 

    Easier said then done. 



    Bingo!

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mployee8. Show Mployee8's posts

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    The new rules also mean that having three stars is a thing of the past ... teams like the Heat, Lakers, etc will have a hard time hanging onto their max players are pay a steep price to do so.

    Players will be jettisoned or traded for others with picks to maintain S&T options and player exceptions. The team of the future will not be mediocre players added to a core of 3 stars but a much deeper bench built around 1-2 star players with others in the wings to replace the aging stars on the way out after year 4 or 5 ... there will be constant turnover as teams seem to be rebuilding every five years and players move more frequently than ever before.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fiercy. Show Fiercy's posts

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    In response to Mployee8's comment:

    The new rules also mean that having three stars is a thing of the past ... teams like the Heat, Lakers, etc will have a hard time hanging onto their max players are pay a steep price to do so.

    Players will be jettisoned or traded for others with picks to maintain S&T options and player exceptions. The team of the future will not be mediocre players added to a core of 3 stars but a much deeper bench built around 1-2 star players with others in the wings to replace the aging stars on the way out after year 4 or 5 ... there will be constant turnover as teams seem to be rebuilding every five years and players move more frequently than ever before.



    Yes, there will be no more super teams, like Miami's Big 3.

    But players like Evan Turner and Spencer Hawes are not the solution.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fiercy. Show Fiercy's posts

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    Sign and trades are not as enticing anymore.

    Proof of this is David West and Dwight Howard leaving and their former teams got nothing in return.

    Reality trumps creativity when it comes to sign and trades.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mployee8. Show Mployee8's posts

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    In response to Fiercy's comment:

    In response to Mployee8's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    The new rules also mean that having three stars is a thing of the past ... teams like the Heat, Lakers, etc will have a hard time hanging onto their max players are pay a steep price to do so.

    Players will be jettisoned or traded for others with picks to maintain S&T options and player exceptions. The team of the future will not be mediocre players added to a core of 3 stars but a much deeper bench built around 1-2 star players with others in the wings to replace the aging stars on the way out after year 4 or 5 ... there will be constant turnover as teams seem to be rebuilding every five years and players move more frequently than ever before.

     



    Yes, there will be no more super teams, like Miami's Big 3.

     

    But players like Evan Turner and Spencer Hawes are not the solution.

    [/QUOTE]


    Guys like them will be part of the deep bench to success ... a stretch 4/5 and an inside scoring threat.

    S&T's will be done on a regular basis well before a player sniffs free agency to keep the roataional rebuild going ...

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from scubber. Show scubber's posts

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    What I hate with the new rules is that it encourages good players to reach unrestricted FA, then all the teams that have cap room are almost at equal footing to get the player.  If I read the rules correctly, the team with Bird's right only get one advantage in extra year extension, 5 instead of 4.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fiercy. Show Fiercy's posts

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    In response to Mployee8's comment:

     

    Guys like them will be part of the deep bench to success ... a stretch 4/5 and an inside scoring threat.

    S&T's will be done on a regular basis well before a player sniffs free agency to keep the roataional rebuild going ...



    A deep bench doesn't include a player like Evan Turner who's asking price is around 8-10m.

     

    Sign and trades are beneficial to restricted FAs, not unrestricted free-agents.

    I already gave you 2 examples of impact players leaving and their former teams got nothing in return.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mployee8. Show Mployee8's posts

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    I guess that's why Ainge is looking to move Bradley as well huh?

     

    Per CBS:

    On Boston sports radio Wednesday, SI.com reported that Celtics GM Danny Ainge wants a king's ransom for his players in trade offers, including asking for first-round picks in exchange for Jeff Green and Avery Bradley. From WEEI:

    "I've had conversations with a couple of different general managers last night, and we talked a little bit about Boston and what they were trying to do at the trade deadline, and the sense I got from them was that Boston is totally overvaluing some of the players they have. They're looking for first-round picks in return for guys like Jeff Green or a guy like Avery Bradley and others and they're just not going to get it.”

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fiercy. Show Fiercy's posts

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    In response to scubber's comment:

    What I hate with the new rules is that it encourages good players to reach unrestricted FA, then all the teams that have cap room are almost at equal footing to get the player.  If I read the rules correctly, the team with Bird's right only get one advantage in extra year extension, 5 instead of 4.



    Bingo!

    A perfect example of that is the Cavs doing a sign and trade for Lebron when Lebron left for Miami.

    The Cavs got a trade exception and picks when they signed and traded Lebron to Miami.

     

    Just last summer the Hawks lost Josh Smith to free-agency and ended up getting nothing in return when Josh Smith signed with the Pistons.

    So why didn't the Hawks do a sign and trade for Josh Smith?

    Here:

    http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2013/07/06/josh-smith-to-the-pistons-for-56-million/

    This ends Smith’s at times tumultuous nine-year tenure with his hometown Atlanta Hawks, the team that selected him with the 17th pick in the 2004 Draft. It also ends the pursuit of the versatile forward by both the Houston Rockets and Dallas Mavericks, who were both still trying to figure out ways to present possible sign-and-trade deals to the Hawks that would land Smith.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fiercy. Show Fiercy's posts

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    In response to Mployee8's comment:

    I guess that's why Ainge is looking to move Bradley as well huh?

     

    Per CBS:

    On Boston sports radio Wednesday, SI.com reported that Celtics GM Danny Ainge wants a king's ransom for his players in trade offers, including asking for first-round picks in exchange for Jeff Green and Avery Bradley. From WEEI:

    "I've had conversations with a couple of different general managers last night, and we talked a little bit about Boston and what they were trying to do at the trade deadline, and the sense I got from them was that Boston is totally overvaluing some of the players they have. They're looking for first-round picks in return for guys like Jeff Green or a guy like Avery Bradley and others and they're just not going to get it.”



    Mployee

    I told you I have no problem if the Celts get a lottery pick, top 10 pick, for AB.

    I'm not saying AB is untouchable.

    All I'm saying is if Ainge will not get what he wants for AB, Ainge will sign AB to a 7-8m per year deal.

    If AB agrees to 28m for 4 years then he'll surely be a Celtic for the next 4 years.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from PHX85014. Show PHX85014's posts

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    In response to Fiercy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    When Bird retired, the Celts tried to keep making the playoffs.

    Celtics management also didn't try to get anything for McHale or Parish via trade.

    Instead of rebuilding immediately, the Celtics signed guys like Xavier McDaniel and a 35-year old Dominique Wilkins.

    The Celtics wasted 3 years by signing those players.

    Eventually the Celts hit rock bottom in 1997.

     

    Danny Ainge is doing the right thing by doing the opposite of what the Celtics management in the 1990s did.

    Being a middle of the pack team or an 8th seed is worse than being a lottery team.

     

    That's why I don't think it makes sense if the Celts don't get rid of Hump and Bass on or before the trade deadline.

    Keeping both Hump and Bass, or just one of them, will make the Celts a better team, but better is not good at this stage of the rebuilding process.

     

    Every time the Celts play a team like the Spurs or Pacers the Celtics get exposed.

    The Celts just don't have the star power, shooters, and a quality Center.

    Guys like Spencer Hawes, Evan Turner, Larry Sanders, and Gordon Hayward will not put the Celts on the same level with the elite teams of the NBA today.

     

    The Celts are going to be a lottery team this season and next season.

    It's reality.

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree with your premise , until the last sentence.....the Celtics WILL NOT be a lottery team next season.

    Ainge will churn the bottom half of the roster before the deadline , add a couple more core players plus assets , then on Draft Night , Ainge will spend whatever assets he has to get two of the top ten players in the draft.....meaning the Celtics will make the playoffs next season, the rebuild will essentially be complete on Draft Night 2014

    I think Fiercy needs to open the windows and get a bit of fresh air.....too much pessimism and negativity ! I call it the New England Curse.....

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fiercy. Show Fiercy's posts

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    In response to PHX85014's comment:

     

    I agree with your premise , until the last sentence.....the Celtics WILL NOT be a lottery team next season.

    Ainge will churn the bottom half of the roster before the deadline , add a couple more core players plus assets , then on Draft Night , Ainge will spend whatever assets he has to get two of the top ten players in the draft.....meaning the Celtics will make the playoffs next season, the rebuild will essentially be complete on Draft Night 2014

    I think Fiercy needs to open the windows and get a bit of fresh air.....too much pessimism and negativity ! I call it the New England Curse.....



    It's not negativity.

    Ainge already said he's thinking long term.

     

    Celts will also not get 2 top 10 picks on draft night if they don't trade Rondo.

    Rondo is the only asset the Celts have that will give them another lottery pick.

     

    If Ainge is going to add a core player at the trade deadline, it's most likely going to be Asik.

    But there's no way the Celtics will be rebuilt on draft night 2014.

    It's reality, not negativity.

     

    Think about it, if Ainge is really planning on a quick rebuild, why did he allow Miami to dump Joel Anthony on the Celtics for multiple 2nd rounders.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fiercy. Show Fiercy's posts

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    In response to mellymel1's comment:

     

    This is true...too bad every time hey win 2 or 3 against hideous competition the sane few come running back in here crowing about us making the playoffs...no way....



    Bingo!

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fiercy. Show Fiercy's posts

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    Here:

    http://insider.espn.go.com/blog/nba/rumors/

    FEB 14 8:10 AM ET By Nick Borges | ESPN.com <vspace="0"> The  Boston Celtics have been in the news cycle as president of basketball operations Danny Ainge is actively talking with all the teams about potential deals. The Celtics are all about the future, which means Ainge is looking to sell rather than buy for the short-term.
     

Share