CelticsStrong

Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: PhoSita on February 22, 2013, 09:48:25 AM

Title: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: PhoSita on February 22, 2013, 09:48:25 AM
(http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2011/0223/nba_a_ainge11_576.jpg)


What do we know about what happened before the trade deadline?

- Rondo came up in some rumors, indicating he was shopped, at least to gauge his value.  This probably happened before his injury, though, and the discussions were just reported closer to the deadline.

- The KG to Clips for Jordan and Bledsoe deal was a real possibility.  If KG had waived his no-trade clause, it likely would have happened.

- Danny Ainge shopped Pierce heavily on the day of the trade deadine, but there were no significant offers other than the Humphries / Brooks / 1st package from the Nets.

- Ainge tried hard to get in on the Josh Smith bidding, but didn't have much to offer that the Hawks wanted.  A third team that could facilitate the trade by giving up some younger assets in exchange for Pierce never materialized.

- Bass, Terry, and Green never came up in trade rumors prior to the deadline -- except that Ainge supposedly offered Bass and Green to the Hawks for Josh Smith (sounds like a classic low-ball).

- Courtney Lee's name did come up in a vague rumor involving the Timberwolves (a Brandon Roy salary dump), but the rumor didn't seem to have any legs.

- The Celtics supposedly had interest in Ramon Sessions, Gerald Henderson, and Tyreke Evans, but those talks never developed into any full blown rumors with specific offers.

- Ainge ended up trading Barbosa and Jason Collins to the Wizards for Jordan Crawford -- essentially a salary dump by the Wizards of a player still on his rookie deal.

- Fab Melo was originally in the Wizards deal, but the Wizards preferred a cheaper veteran expiring contract as filler to a 1st round pick big man with a few years left on a rookie contract.

- In general, teams were unwilling to part with 1st round picks or young, productive players on rookie deals at this year's deadline.  Teams were similarly unwilling to take on significant long term salary, either preserving cap space for summer free agency, or eager to avoid paying the luxury tax in future seasons.

So what now?

As it stands, the Celtics have a well stocked guard rotation, though they still completely lack any true ballhandlers.  The big man rotation is comprised of three players -- KG, Bass, and Wilcox -- unless you count Fab Melo, who hasn't given any impression so far that he's ready to play in the NBA this season.

Barring a major injury to Pierce or Garnett, this team is headed to the playoffs.  Most likely they will be a bottom four seed; the 5th seed is not out of reach, but the 6th seed is probably a more realistic goal considering the team's lack of depth.

Optimistically, this team could keep up the inspired play they've exhibited since Rondo went down and finish the season on a really great run, culminating in a top 3 seed.  A couple of savvy big man pickups from the waiver wire, D-league, or free agency could fortify the front court and set the team up for a nice little run in the playoffs.  An elite defense paired with a streaky but functional offense could make this team tough to beat.

Pessimistically, the post-Rondo high may have just been a mirage created by a soft home-heavy schedule and a lack of scouting material for opponents.  If that's the case, the team might revert to the level of play that characterized the first third or so of the season, in which case they could end up as the 8th seed, or even fail to make the playoffs at all.  A lack of size, rebounding, ball-handling, inside scoring, and overall energy could sink the team quickly, resulting in a painful first-round exit -- something that has yet to happen in the Garnett era.

Was the trade deadline a success or a failure?

This is a matter of perspective.  The fact that KG and Pierce are still on the team could mean that the trade deadline was a rousing success.  Alternatively, the failure of the team to get any long term value in return for its aging and perhaps close-to-retirement stars could be seen as an utter failure.  The inability -- or indifference -- of the team to shed long term salary tied up in role players like Bass, Terry, Green, and Lee could also be viewed negatively.

Regardless of your perspective, it's hard to say that the team significantly addressed any of its short or long term goals at the trade deadline. 

Jordan Crawford, on this team, is probaby something like a poor-man's Barbosa.  He can play 10 minutes a game, or he can play 40.  Either way, he's probably not going to play much defense and he's going to try to score a bunch of points; some nights he'll even manage to do it.  But the team did have to give up Jason Collins to get him. 

While Collins was not very productive, he was the only big man on the team other than Garnett who could be trusted to make defensive rotations, take charges, set hard picks, and defend the rim a little.  His presence will be missed, and contrary to popular belief, it will not be easy to replace him with somebody off the waiver wire / D-league / free agency dung heap.

The team is still very small, and lacking in rebounding, shot blocking, or inside scoring.  The identity of the team and its strengths and glaring weaknesses were not altered at all.  They are who they are; there will be no cavalry coming on the trade winds.

Should we blame Danny?

It is hard to blame Danny Ainge for the lack of moves.  If you look around the league, almost nothing of consequence happened yesterday.  A lot of teams wanted to make moves, but there apparently was not much willingness between various trade partners to make palatable offers.  Perhaps thanks to the new CBA, fewer and fewer GMs are willing these days to offer themselves up as potential suckers. 

It's telling that the most notable trade that happened in the days leading up to the deadline involved two teams exchanging fist-fulls of young players and mid-level veterans, with no picks involved.  That trade, with Thomas Robinson going to the Rockets, was effectively a salary dump for the pathetic, cash strapped Maloofs, owners of the Kings.  Once the Kings move to Seattle and the Maloofs are finally done making decisions for an NBA team, deals like that one will probably be altogether a thing of the past.

What is clear now is that Danny Ainge more or less locked himself into this group last summer.  He gave Kevin Garnett a three year deal at $10 million a season, and to top it off he gave KG a no-trade clause.  He paid what was probably a little bit above market value for Jeff Green and Brandon Bass, and paid mid-level money for Jason Terry and Courtney Lee.  All of those players were signed for 3-4 years. 

Danny knew the details of the new CBA when he made those moves.  He probably could have predicted that none of the free agent signings would be very valuable trade assets, unless one of them had a breakout season, until the last year of their deals when they became expiring contracts. 

He also probably could have predicted that few if any teams would be willing to give up significant future assets in the form of cheap young players, draft picks, and cap relief by way of expiring contracts for aging veterans -- even All-Star caliber ones.

In short, Danny made his bed with this group.  As soon as Garnett agreed to come back, the plan for the off-season was to go all-in to win now.  Danny probably could have gotten different players for less money and on shorter deals, but then the supporting cast would have been much weaker, which would have doomed the next run before it began.  This season was supposed to be the last hurrah, and the next two seasons were supposed to be the price of that last hurrah.  Well, this season has gone horribly awry due to a dreadfully sloppy, inconsistent start and a plague of major injuries. 

It is possible that Ainge may have more freedom to reshape the roster for the future this summer.  KG may finally retire, with the team's future looking murky at best.  Pierce may or may not join him.  On the other hand, we might see virtually the same crew, with a first round rookie and a few minor free agent additions.  We won't know for sure until the summer.  But in all likelihood, the window of opportunity for making a major move to drastically change the look of this team before 2015 has passed.
 
For better or for worse, this is our team.
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: PhoSita on February 22, 2013, 02:33:04 PM
*Changed the name of the post to better reflect the contents
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: tarheelsxxiii on February 22, 2013, 02:53:37 PM
We should have a thread dedicated to:

1. listing off all of Ainge's trades and picks
1a. evaluating qualitatively (e.g., the players, more objectively)
1b. evaluating how these decisions were made or these trades came to fruition

2. listing the manner in which Ainge has interacted with the media at each trade deadline since he first starting shopping Rondo
2a. evaluating his professionalism
2b. evaluating how this has affected our team (in the past and going forward)

Then we would have no more need for "It's not Danny's fault we suck right now," or "Danny made some good late round picks a few years ago..." discussions. Maybe enough evidence suggesting Ainge is not a good GM will put the question to bed sooner than later.
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: Celtics18 on February 22, 2013, 03:04:03 PM
TP, Pho, on a well researched and thoughtful post.
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: CelticHooligan3 on February 22, 2013, 03:06:16 PM
If Garnett retires at the end of the year honestly i don't know how ill feel about his legacy here if he nixed this trade.




http://bostonherald.com/sports/columnists/2013/02/case_claused_by_kevin_garnett_s_last_word






Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: tarheelsxxiii on February 22, 2013, 03:15:49 PM
If Garnett retires at the end of the year honestly i don't know how ill feel about his legacy here if he nixed this trade.




http://bostonherald.com/sports/columnists/2013/02/case_claused_by_kevin_garnett_s_last_word

This is all I read:
As Danny Ainge’s frantic efforts to trade Garnett to the Los Angeles Clippers for DeAndre Jordan and Eric Bledsoe proved once again the existence of a no-trade clause means about as much to the Celtics president of basketball operations as loyalty does to Bill Belichick. In the end, Ainge could not have traded Garnett anywhere without his consent, but the public and private bind that refusing to accept such a trade would have put Garnett in locally is exactly why Ray Allen put no faith in the no-trade clause he was offered by Ainge before he jumped ship for Miami last offseason.

That makes you question KG's character, not Ainge's? Why should Garnett leave? He was our anchor in our 5 years of relevance. No one played harder or cared more. He defined our culture. Not the monkey that was handed KG by an old friend.
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: JSD on February 22, 2013, 03:17:16 PM
This was an excellent, well written and entertaining post. TP.

I agree with much of what you said outside of your final disposition, which is essentially, ‘this is our team until 2015 because these types of mid-level contracts are difficult to unload’. I do agree that during the season, while every team is more or less set in terms of finances, that these deals are tough to move. However, this offseason will present a different set of circumstances that I believe allows Ainge ability to significantly change the roster if he chooses to do so.

In the summer teams have money, and once the likes of Dallas, Atlanta, Washington, Detroit, lose out on key free agents, then our guys become attractive to absorb as long as the cost isn’t too high. So I believe Ainge will be able to drastically change the roster if he chooses to do so this summer and could even hit the reset button.
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: LarBrd33 on February 22, 2013, 03:20:26 PM
pretty much nailed it.  The key thing is the KG deal.

#1 - We don't know if the clippers actually would have traded Bledsoe and Jordan.  It sounds like the coach did, but the coach doesn't run the organization.  They were probably offering Bledsoe and Butler or something.  The media is running with rumors as if Bledsoe and Jordan were actually on the table.  We don't know that.

#2 - KG could have retired in the offseason or signed elsewhere and left us empty handed.  That "no-trade" clause was probably key to convincing him to return.  YOu can't be bummed that he blocked the trade... he agreed to a 50% pay cut to return to Boston... not be used as a trade chip.
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: BballTim on February 22, 2013, 03:23:03 PM
pretty much nailed it.  The key thing is the KG deal.

#1 - We don't know if the clippers actually would have traded Bledsoe and Jordan.  It sounds like the coach did, but the coach doesn't run the organization.  They were probably offering Bledsoe and Butler or something.

  Yeah, there were multiple reports that the Clips didn't want to make the Bledsoe/Jordan offer.
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: CelticHooligan3 on February 22, 2013, 03:24:28 PM
If Garnett retires at the end of the year honestly i don't know how ill feel about his legacy here if he nixed this trade.




http://bostonherald.com/sports/columnists/2013/02/case_claused_by_kevin_garnett_s_last_word

This is all I read:
As Danny Ainge’s frantic efforts to trade Garnett to the Los Angeles Clippers for DeAndre Jordan and Eric Bledsoe proved once again the existence of a no-trade clause means about as much to the Celtics president of basketball operations as loyalty does to Bill Belichick. In the end, Ainge could not have traded Garnett anywhere without his consent, but the public and private bind that refusing to accept such a trade would have put Garnett in locally is exactly why Ray Allen put no faith in the no-trade clause he was offered by Ainge before he jumped ship for Miami last offseason.

That makes you question KG's character, not Ainge's? Why should Garnett leave? He was our anchor in our 5 years of relevance. No one played harder or cared more. He defined our culture. Not the monkey that was handed KG by an old friend.





Yes i question what being a "Celtic" means to Garnett. If what Borges says is true it's a selfish move in my opinion. If he's just going to retire at the end of the season then why not do Boston as an organization and its fans a solid by making sure they get nice pieces for the future. Guarantee they would still sign him for a day when he's ready to hang it up like the Sox did with Nomar so he could retire a Celtic. If he just walk off at the end of the year and we got nothing in return yes i will be one Boston Celtics fan that questions his true loyalty to this town.
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: fairweatherfan on February 22, 2013, 03:26:02 PM
Excellent post.  I believe we would've made the Clips deal, even with Butler or Odom in place of Jordan, but for KG's refusal.  Other than that our options were few and almost entirely bad. 

It's not fun to be stuck in our current position but we have to play the cards we're dealt and those that other GMs were willing to exchange with us.  Staying essentially put seems like it was the best of many unpalatable options.
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: LarBrd33 on February 22, 2013, 03:27:08 PM
If Garnett retires at the end of the year honestly i don't know how ill feel about his legacy here if he nixed this trade.




http://bostonherald.com/sports/columnists/2013/02/case_claused_by_kevin_garnett_s_last_word

And how would you have felt about KG's legacy if he retired after Ray signed with Miami?  That's ok...? But taking a paycut to return to Boston (with a no-trade clause attached) on a team that had no realistic chance at a title and mostly wanted to use KG as a mentor for the younger generation... that's bad?... because he SUPPOSEDLY wouldn't agree to a THEORETICAL trade to the Clippers after we tricked him into coming back?

I really hope this didn't play out the way the media is presenting it.  That's pretty disrespectful to KG to trick him into coming back to Boston only to attempt to USE him as nothing more than a trade chip at the deadline.  I'd be pretty disappointed if I were KG and that happened.  It's a [dang] good thing he locked up that no-trade clause when he was debating between returning/fleeing and retiring.
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: Celtics18 on February 22, 2013, 03:28:33 PM
If Garnett retires at the end of the year honestly i don't know how ill feel about his legacy here if he nixed this trade.




http://bostonherald.com/sports/columnists/2013/02/case_claused_by_kevin_garnett_s_last_word

That article states that it wasn't KG who nixed the trade, but that the Clippers backed out because he hinted at retirement.

Either way, I'm not mad at KG for "bleeding green until he dies" as he put it.  I'm grateful.
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: LarBrd33 on February 22, 2013, 03:30:53 PM
If Garnett retires at the end of the year honestly i don't know how ill feel about his legacy here if he nixed this trade.




http://bostonherald.com/sports/columnists/2013/02/case_claused_by_kevin_garnett_s_last_word

This is all I read:
As Danny Ainge’s frantic efforts to trade Garnett to the Los Angeles Clippers for DeAndre Jordan and Eric Bledsoe proved once again the existence of a no-trade clause means about as much to the Celtics president of basketball operations as loyalty does to Bill Belichick. In the end, Ainge could not have traded Garnett anywhere without his consent, but the public and private bind that refusing to accept such a trade would have put Garnett in locally is exactly why Ray Allen put no faith in the no-trade clause he was offered by Ainge before he jumped ship for Miami last offseason.

That makes you question KG's character, not Ainge's? Why should Garnett leave? He was our anchor in our 5 years of relevance. No one played harder or cared more. He defined our culture. Not the monkey that was handed KG by an old friend.





Yes i question what being a "Celtic" means to Garnett. If what Borges says is true it's a selfish move in my opinion. If he's just going to retire at the end of the season then why not do Boston as an organization and its fans a solid by making sure they get nice pieces for the future. Guarantee they would still sign him for a day when he's ready to hang it up like the Sox did with Nomar so he could retire a Celtic. If he just walk off at the end of the year and we got nothing in return yes i will be one Boston Celtics fan that questions his true loyalty to this town.
Being a "Celtic" to KG means not abandoning your team for a nicer situation.  He's a leader of men.  This is his team.  He will die in Green.  I'm happy he locked up that no-trade clause... he didn't deserve to bust his tail every day for this organization in some fruitless attempt at a unlikely championship... only to be used to land Eric Bledsoe and Caron Butler at the deadline.

KG is the epitome of Celtic pride.  I hope he remains part of this organization long after he retires.  He's everything to this team's culture and philosophy.  I desperately hope his mentality can rub off on the younger generation over this next 3-15 months.
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: BballTim on February 22, 2013, 03:33:37 PM
If Garnett retires at the end of the year honestly i don't know how ill feel about his legacy here if he nixed this trade.




http://bostonherald.com/sports/columnists/2013/02/case_claused_by_kevin_garnett_s_last_word

This is all I read:
As Danny Ainge’s frantic efforts to trade Garnett to the Los Angeles Clippers for DeAndre Jordan and Eric Bledsoe proved once again the existence of a no-trade clause means about as much to the Celtics president of basketball operations as loyalty does to Bill Belichick. In the end, Ainge could not have traded Garnett anywhere without his consent, but the public and private bind that refusing to accept such a trade would have put Garnett in locally is exactly why Ray Allen put no faith in the no-trade clause he was offered by Ainge before he jumped ship for Miami last offseason.

That makes you question KG's character, not Ainge's? Why should Garnett leave? He was our anchor in our 5 years of relevance. No one played harder or cared more. He defined our culture. Not the monkey that was handed KG by an old friend.

  It should make you question the reporter's intelligence. I doubt anybody really thinks that Danny was making "frantic efforts to trade Garnett to the Los Angeles Clippers". Also Wilcox supposedly nixed a deal yesterday and PP supposedly has nixed multiple deals over the years even though he doesn't have a no-trade clause. I doubt anyone thinks that either Wilcox or PP were in a public or private bind because of it.
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: CelticHooligan3 on February 22, 2013, 03:34:15 PM
If Garnett retires at the end of the year honestly i don't know how ill feel about his legacy here if he nixed this trade.




http://bostonherald.com/sports/columnists/2013/02/case_claused_by_kevin_garnett_s_last_word

And how would you have felt about KG's legacy if he retired after Ray signed with Miami?  That's ok...? But taking a paycut to return to Boston (with a no-trade clause attached) on a team that had no realistic chance at a title and mostly wanted to use KG as a mentor for the younger generation... that's bad?... because he SUPPOSEDLY wouldn't agree to a THEORETICAL trade to the Clippers after we tricked him into coming back?

I really hope this didn't play out the way the media is presenting it.  That's pretty disrespectful to KG to trick him into coming back to Boston only to attempt to USE him as nothing more than a trade chip at the deadline.  I'd be pretty disappointed if I were KG and that happened.  It's a [dang] good thing he locked up that no-trade clause when he was debating between returning/fleeing and retiring.




I know it's sacrilige to question KG on this board but if he walks at the end of this year i will look at him a lot differently as will many other fans im sure. He goes to LA (his home) for a couple months and chases one last ring. We get nice little pieces. He retires then we sign him to a one day contract so he can retire a Celtic. Ala Nomar as i mentioned. What's the problem with that? I see it as a win/win for everyone.

But if he just walks and what Borges said is true then i think that's a really selfish move. Sorry if you disagree.
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: Celtics18 on February 22, 2013, 03:39:11 PM
If Garnett retires at the end of the year honestly i don't know how ill feel about his legacy here if he nixed this trade.




http://bostonherald.com/sports/columnists/2013/02/case_claused_by_kevin_garnett_s_last_word

And how would you have felt about KG's legacy if he retired after Ray signed with Miami?  That's ok...? But taking a paycut to return to Boston (with a no-trade clause attached) on a team that had no realistic chance at a title and mostly wanted to use KG as a mentor for the younger generation... that's bad?... because he SUPPOSEDLY wouldn't agree to a THEORETICAL trade to the Clippers after we tricked him into coming back?

I really hope this didn't play out the way the media is presenting it.  That's pretty disrespectful to KG to trick him into coming back to Boston only to attempt to USE him as nothing more than a trade chip at the deadline.  I'd be pretty disappointed if I were KG and that happened.  It's a [dang] good thing he locked up that no-trade clause when he was debating between returning/fleeing and retiring.




I know it's sacrilige to question KG on this board but if he walks at the end of this year i will look at him a lot differently as will many other fans im sure. He goes to LA (his home) for a couple months and chases one last ring. We get nice little pieces. He retires then we sign him to a one day contract so he can retire a Celtic. Ala Nomar as i mentioned. What's the problem with that? I see it as a win/win for everyone.

But if he just walks and what Borges said is true then i think that's a really selfish move. Sorry if you disagree.

What if he helps lead this team to an upset over Miami in the playoffs and a deeper than expected run?  Will you still think of his staying as selfish? 

Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: Roy H. on February 22, 2013, 03:39:33 PM
In other words, "What have you done for me lately, KG?"
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: PhoSita on February 22, 2013, 03:45:57 PM
In other words, "What have you done for me lately, KG?"

Yeah, I don't think it's fair to question KG.  He wanted to stay where he's comfortable and where he's committed to play.

I think Ainge knew all along that if he were going to trade KG, he'd have to trade Pierce first.

That's why Pierce was shopped, reportedly for as little return as "expiring contracts and draft picks."  But no real offers were on the table -- as far as we know -- so Pierce was not dealt.  Therefore, KG didn't want to leave.
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: CelticHooligan3 on February 22, 2013, 03:46:31 PM
In other words, "What have you done for me lately, KG?"


Yup. Pretty much. But that's professional sports in a nutshell. And no i don't see them upsetting Miami. Im a fan but i don't drink that Lil Wayne strength kool-aid. Sorry guys i'd rather have an up and coming super atheltic Center. And a PG who i could pair with bradley for the best defensive backcourt in the league. I'd move Rondo for Cousins and we've got one heck of a team with little down time. I was a fan through the crappy years and ill be a fan if those times come soon again. Doesn't mean i have to like it though. I'd rather avoid the pitino years again.
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: eugen on February 22, 2013, 04:19:26 PM
Don't Blame Danny...means that situaton is not good, and somebody has to be blamed.
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: Moranis on February 22, 2013, 04:35:23 PM
Ainge put this disaster together, so of course he is to be blamed.  It is his team.  It is his mess.  It is his fault.
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: Onslaught on February 22, 2013, 04:43:07 PM
If Garnett retires at the end of the year honestly i don't know how ill feel about his legacy here if he nixed this trade.




http://bostonherald.com/sports/columnists/2013/02/case_claused_by_kevin_garnett_s_last_word

And how would you have felt about KG's legacy if he retired after Ray signed with Miami?  That's ok...? But taking a paycut to return to Boston (with a no-trade clause attached) on a team that had no realistic chance at a title and mostly wanted to use KG as a mentor for the younger generation... that's bad?... because he SUPPOSEDLY wouldn't agree to a THEORETICAL trade to the Clippers after we tricked him into coming back?

I really hope this didn't play out the way the media is presenting it.  That's pretty disrespectful to KG to trick him into coming back to Boston only to attempt to USE him as nothing more than a trade chip at the deadline.  I'd be pretty disappointed if I were KG and that happened.  It's a [dang] good thing he locked up that no-trade clause when he was debating between returning/fleeing and retiring.




I know it's sacrilige to question KG on this board but if he walks at the end of this year i will look at him a lot differently as will many other fans im sure. He goes to LA (his home) for a couple months and chases one last ring. We get nice little pieces. He retires then we sign him to a one day contract so he can retire a Celtic. Ala Nomar as i mentioned. What's the problem with that? I see it as a win/win for everyone.

But if he just walks and what Borges said is true then i think that's a really selfish move. Sorry if you disagree.
It's Boston's fault for giving him a no trade clause if they ever dreamed of trading him.
And I don't agree that we would get nice pieces. They offered us garbage players.
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: CelticHooligan3 on February 22, 2013, 04:58:47 PM
If Garnett retires at the end of the year honestly i don't know how ill feel about his legacy here if he nixed this trade.




http://bostonherald.com/sports/columnists/2013/02/case_claused_by_kevin_garnett_s_last_word

And how would you have felt about KG's legacy if he retired after Ray signed with Miami?  That's ok...? But taking a paycut to return to Boston (with a no-trade clause attached) on a team that had no realistic chance at a title and mostly wanted to use KG as a mentor for the younger generation... that's bad?... because he SUPPOSEDLY wouldn't agree to a THEORETICAL trade to the Clippers after we tricked him into coming back?

I really hope this didn't play out the way the media is presenting it.  That's pretty disrespectful to KG to trick him into coming back to Boston only to attempt to USE him as nothing more than a trade chip at the deadline.  I'd be pretty disappointed if I were KG and that happened.  It's a [dang] good thing he locked up that no-trade clause when he was debating between returning/fleeing and retiring.




I know it's sacrilige to question KG on this board but if he walks at the end of this year i will look at him a lot differently as will many other fans im sure. He goes to LA (his home) for a couple months and chases one last ring. We get nice little pieces. He retires then we sign him to a one day contract so he can retire a Celtic. Ala Nomar as i mentioned. What's the problem with that? I see it as a win/win for everyone.

But if he just walks and what Borges said is true then i think that's a really selfish move. Sorry if you disagree.
It's Boston's fault for giving him a no trade clause if they ever dreamed of trading him.
And I don't agree that we would get nice pieces. They offered us garbage players.




Deandre Jordan and Eric Bledsoe are "garbage" players? In what world, say you?
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: BudweiserCeltic on February 22, 2013, 05:02:00 PM
I'm still wondering... what are we actually blaming Danny for?
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: JSD on February 22, 2013, 05:04:44 PM
I'm still wondering... what are we actually blaming Danny for?

Not making the team better or worse, for the status quo prevailing after the deadline.

I for one am thrilled. Danny made a great little move and that's all we needed imo.
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on February 22, 2013, 05:05:02 PM
Danny was asked if he thought the celtics could still win a title this year. "Things would have to fall our way" That's as close to a NO as you're going to get.
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: BudweiserCeltic on February 22, 2013, 05:05:50 PM
I'm still wondering... what are we actually blaming Danny for?

Not making the team better or worse, for the status quo prevailing after the deadline.

I for one am thrilled. Danny made a great little move and that's all we needed imo.

Yep.
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: eugen on February 22, 2013, 05:54:43 PM
Always moat responsible for difficult situation are GM and the head coach. Of course DA is most t responsible than other factor like Doc and players

I do not see a real focused plan. This since 2008. He almost sign old broken players (JO, Rasheed, Shaq etc,) sent out 2 players of starting line-up (RAY+Perk) and did not get real replacements for them. I see no plans. For example, if he is gone rebuild the team, he cannot offer PP 16 millions/year at age of 35, and cannot sign KG 3 years contract for 34 mill/year at the age of 36, because the budged cannot let you to improve the roster. I see a very dark budged future unless he trade KG or PP or Rondo.

The most important issue is he did not plan the future. Is going to be around a new big 3 legacy? Around whom? Some players sign in October and traded in March (Barbosa)…Does not have sense… Considering Rondo important future, but in the other side, talking to the LAL GM to trade him…
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: CoachBo on February 22, 2013, 06:35:16 PM
If Garnett retires at the end of the year honestly i don't know how ill feel about his legacy here if he nixed this trade.




http://bostonherald.com/sports/columnists/2013/02/case_claused_by_kevin_garnett_s_last_word

And how would you have felt about KG's legacy if he retired after Ray signed with Miami?  That's ok...? But taking a paycut to return to Boston (with a no-trade clause attached) on a team that had no realistic chance at a title and mostly wanted to use KG as a mentor for the younger generation... that's bad?... because he SUPPOSEDLY wouldn't agree to a THEORETICAL trade to the Clippers after we tricked him into coming back?

I really hope this didn't play out the way the media is presenting it.  That's pretty disrespectful to KG to trick him into coming back to Boston only to attempt to USE him as nothing more than a trade chip at the deadline.  I'd be pretty disappointed if I were KG and that happened.  It's a [dang] good thing he locked up that no-trade clause when he was debating between returning/fleeing and retiring.




I know it's sacrilige to question KG on this board but if he walks at the end of this year i will look at him a lot differently as will many other fans im sure. He goes to LA (his home) for a couple months and chases one last ring. We get nice little pieces. He retires then we sign him to a one day contract so he can retire a Celtic. Ala Nomar as i mentioned. What's the problem with that? I see it as a win/win for everyone.

But if he just walks and what Borges said is true then i think that's a really selfish move. Sorry if you disagree.
It's Boston's fault for giving him a no trade clause if they ever dreamed of trading him.
And I don't agree that we would get nice pieces. They offered us garbage players.




Deandre Jordan and Eric Bledsoe are "garbage" players? In what world, say you?

I agree with him.

Jordan is Perkins with better legs, at a higher salary - offensively challenged. No way is he worth $11 million a year.

Bledsoe has shooting issues.

I would not object to moving Garnett for useful long-term pieces.

The Clippers offered nothing of the same. No interest in Jordan, mild interest in Bledsoe. Neither are the caliber of players we will need to rebuild.
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: KGs Knee on February 22, 2013, 06:45:07 PM
I applaud KG for using his no trade clause, if in fact, he did.

Made my day.  Don't care if it bothers others.  Too bad for you.
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: CelticHooligan3 on February 22, 2013, 06:51:33 PM
I applaud KG for using his no trade clause, if in fact, he did.

Made my day.  Don't care if it bothers others.  Too bad for you.



To each his own i guess.

You root for the name on the back of the jersey.

I root for the name on the front.
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: Roy H. on February 22, 2013, 07:15:58 PM
I applaud KG for using his no trade clause, if in fact, he did.

Made my day.  Don't care if it bothers others.  Too bad for you.



To each his own i guess.

You root for the name on the back of the jersey.

I root for the name on the front.

First, there's nothing wrong with rooting for individual players, especially those who have shown passion and loyalty to the franchise.

Second, just because somebody doesn't see eye to eye with you doesn't mean they're not every bit the fan of the franchise that you are.
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: dlpin on February 22, 2013, 07:23:46 PM


Deandre Jordan and Eric Bledsoe are "garbage" players? In what world, say you?

The cap space that could be created in the case of a sudden KG retirement is much, much more valuable than two players who at best would be role players on a championship team.

All these garbage trades people keep proposing (Jordan, Bledsoe, Cousins) are all great ways to ensure a decade of mediocrity.

Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: Moranis on February 23, 2013, 09:43:39 AM


Deandre Jordan and Eric Bledsoe are "garbage" players? In what world, say you?

The cap space that could be created in the case of a sudden KG retirement is much, much more valuable than two players who at best would be role players on a championship team.

All these garbage trades people keep proposing (Jordan, Bledsoe, Cousins) are all great ways to ensure a decade of mediocrity.
we are going to be in a decade of mediocrity and/or crap anyway.  Rondo is too good a player to keep Boston from being terrible and if we let him walk for nothing it will be at least 3 or 4 years of being bad before there is a light at the end of the tunnel.  Boston needed to go all in at the deadline or go into full bore rebuilding.  The status quo just delays the inevitable.
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: PhoSita on February 23, 2013, 10:20:36 AM


Deandre Jordan and Eric Bledsoe are "garbage" players? In what world, say you?

The cap space that could be created in the case of a sudden KG retirement is much, much more valuable than two players who at best would be role players on a championship team.

All these garbage trades people keep proposing (Jordan, Bledsoe, Cousins) are all great ways to ensure a decade of mediocrity.
we are going to be in a decade of mediocrity and/or crap anyway.  Rondo is too good a player to keep Boston from being terrible and if we let him walk for nothing it will be at least 3 or 4 years of being bad before there is a light at the end of the tunnel.  Boston needed to go all in at the deadline or go into full bore rebuilding.  The status quo just delays the inevitable.


Whatever we get for Rondo in a trade plus cap space is probably better than Rondo and Deandre Jordan.

I disagree somewhat with others re: Bledsoe.  I think he could have been an asset.

But then again, he could have topped out not much better than what he is now and then he wouldn't be worth nearly as much.
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: BballTim on February 23, 2013, 10:27:27 AM


Deandre Jordan and Eric Bledsoe are "garbage" players? In what world, say you?

The cap space that could be created in the case of a sudden KG retirement is much, much more valuable than two players who at best would be role players on a championship team.

All these garbage trades people keep proposing (Jordan, Bledsoe, Cousins) are all great ways to ensure a decade of mediocrity.
we are going to be in a decade of mediocrity and/or crap anyway.  Rondo is too good a player to keep Boston from being terrible and if we let him walk for nothing it will be at least 3 or 4 years of being bad before there is a light at the end of the tunnel.  Boston needed to go all in at the deadline or go into full bore rebuilding.  The status quo just delays the inevitable.

  The good news is, based on what I've read over the last few years, we're already in year 4 or so of mediocrity and/or crap.
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: hwangjini_1 on February 23, 2013, 10:28:13 AM
i have just a small, non-kg related question.

phosita mentioned in his post that..

"- Fab Melo was originally in the Wizards deal, but the Wizards preferred a cheaper veteran expiring contract as filler to a 1st round pick big man with a few years left on a rookie contract."

i have not been able to find anything to back up this point on the wizards not wanting melo's contract. all i have seen is a rumor that first included him, then later replaced him with collins.

does anyone have a solid statement that the wizards said "no melo, give us the contract we can dump immediately"? or was it a case of the wizards asking for melo and then ainge saying no?

just curious.
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: CoachBo on February 23, 2013, 10:28:49 AM
Agreed, to a degree.

I certainly think that those who considered moving Garnett and Pierce the prerequisite to a rebuild are off-point.

The key to beginning a rebuild is the return Danny can get for Rondo, hopefully in the summer once he's healthy and marketable again.

He is the most valuable asset the franchise has, and his performance pre-injury certainly adds to the numerous questions about whether he's a rebuilding block or a trade asset.

To me, it's clear - he is the latter. Unfortunate he went down when he did, or perhaps Danny could have gotten value for him at the deadline.
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: CoachBo on February 23, 2013, 10:33:31 AM
I applaud KG for using his no trade clause, if in fact, he did.

Made my day.  Don't care if it bothers others.  Too bad for you.



To each his own i guess.

You root for the name on the back of the jersey.

I root for the name on the front.

First, there's nothing wrong with rooting for individual players, especially those who have shown passion and loyalty to the franchise.

Second, just because somebody doesn't see eye to eye with you doesn't mean they're not every bit the fan of the franchise that you are.

Eh, Roy, I coached two-dozen players over the years who displayed passion and loyalty to the team.

And none of them could contribute significantly to winning.

Personally, I am not wired toward the individual player worship. Not how a coach can or should think. Or a general manager, for that matter. See Green, Jeff for further information.

I like players who contribute consistently to winning, with as few negatives as possible. Can you keep the basketball moving? Do you take good shots consistently? Do you make consistently good decisions with the basketball? Can you get the tough rebound?

Beyond that, meh. They are pieces to be reshuffled to find the above.
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: PhoSita on February 23, 2013, 10:40:26 AM
i have just a small, non-kg related question.

phosita mentioned in his post that..

"- Fab Melo was originally in the Wizards deal, but the Wizards preferred a cheaper veteran expiring contract as filler to a 1st round pick big man with a few years left on a rookie contract."

i have not been able to find anything to back up this point on the wizards not wanting melo's contract. all i have seen is a rumor that first included him, then later replaced him with collins.

does anyone have a solid statement that the wizards said "no melo, give us the contract we can dump immediately"? or was it a case of the wizards asking for melo and then ainge saying no?

just curious.

Admittedly, there was some amount of speculation here on my part.

But from what I read it sounded pretty clear that Danny put Melo in the deal.  Melo was on the table.  I believe the Wizards could have had Melo if they wanted him.  But they chose the cap savings over the rookie deal project.
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: wdleehi on February 23, 2013, 10:43:09 AM
KG saved the Celtics.  Thank you KG. 



Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: Roy H. on February 23, 2013, 10:44:24 AM
i have just a small, non-kg related question.

phosita mentioned in his post that..

"- Fab Melo was originally in the Wizards deal, but the Wizards preferred a cheaper veteran expiring contract as filler to a 1st round pick big man with a few years left on a rookie contract."

i have not been able to find anything to back up this point on the wizards not wanting melo's contract. all i have seen is a rumor that first included him, then later replaced him with collins.

does anyone have a solid statement that the wizards said "no melo, give us the contract we can dump immediately"? or was it a case of the wizards asking for melo and then ainge saying no?

just curious.

Admittedly, there was some amount of speculation here on my part.

But from what I read it sounded pretty clear that Danny put Melo in the deal.  Melo was on the table.  I believe the Wizards could have had Melo if they wanted him.  But they chose the cap savings over the rookie deal project.

Michael Lee of the Washington Post reported that the Wizards rejected Lee, and wanted the cost savings:

http://www.bulletsforever.com/2013/2/21/4014942/jordan-crawford-trade-wizards-rejected-fab-melo-offer-preferred
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: hwangjini_1 on February 23, 2013, 10:50:20 AM
i have just a small, non-kg related question.

phosita mentioned in his post that..

"- Fab Melo was originally in the Wizards deal, but the Wizards preferred a cheaper veteran expiring contract as filler to a 1st round pick big man with a few years left on a rookie contract."

i have not been able to find anything to back up this point on the wizards not wanting melo's contract. all i have seen is a rumor that first included him, then later replaced him with collins.

does anyone have a solid statement that the wizards said "no melo, give us the contract we can dump immediately"? or was it a case of the wizards asking for melo and then ainge saying no?

just curious.

Admittedly, there was some amount of speculation here on my part.

But from what I read it sounded pretty clear that Danny put Melo in the deal.  Melo was on the table.  I believe the Wizards could have had Melo if they wanted him.  But they chose the cap savings over the rookie deal project.

Michael Lee of the Washington Post reported that the Wizards rejected Lee, and wanted the cost savings:

http://www.bulletsforever.com/2013/2/21/4014942/jordan-crawford-trade-wizards-rejected-fab-melo-offer-preferred

yep. this addresses my question perfectly. i give thanks to both of you.
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: BballTim on February 23, 2013, 11:05:23 AM
Agreed, to a degree.

I certainly think that those who considered moving Garnett and Pierce the prerequisite to a rebuild are off-point.

The key to beginning a rebuild is the return Danny can get for Rondo, hopefully in the summer once he's healthy and marketable again.

He is the most valuable asset the franchise has, and his performance pre-injury certainly adds to the numerous questions about whether he's a rebuilding block or a trade asset.

To me, it's clear - he is the latter. Unfortunate he went down when he did, or perhaps Danny could have gotten value for him at the deadline.

  Hopefully Danny's smart enough to judge Rondo more on the deep playoff runs he's led the team on that a 1-2 month stretch during the season when the team's not playing well which we seem to see every year.
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: BudweiserCeltic on February 23, 2013, 11:20:02 AM
i have just a small, non-kg related question.

phosita mentioned in his post that..

"- Fab Melo was originally in the Wizards deal, but the Wizards preferred a cheaper veteran expiring contract as filler to a 1st round pick big man with a few years left on a rookie contract."

i have not been able to find anything to back up this point on the wizards not wanting melo's contract. all i have seen is a rumor that first included him, then later replaced him with collins.

does anyone have a solid statement that the wizards said "no melo, give us the contract we can dump immediately"? or was it a case of the wizards asking for melo and then ainge saying no?

just curious.

Admittedly, there was some amount of speculation here on my part.

But from what I read it sounded pretty clear that Danny put Melo in the deal.  Melo was on the table.  I believe the Wizards could have had Melo if they wanted him.  But they chose the cap savings over the rookie deal project.

Michael Lee of the Washington Post reported that the Wizards rejected Lee, and wanted the cost savings:

http://www.bulletsforever.com/2013/2/21/4014942/jordan-crawford-trade-wizards-rejected-fab-melo-offer-preferred

Melo you mean. I would've knocked Ainge's teeth off if he had traded Lee for this :P
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: BballTim on February 23, 2013, 11:32:09 AM
i have just a small, non-kg related question.

phosita mentioned in his post that..

"- Fab Melo was originally in the Wizards deal, but the Wizards preferred a cheaper veteran expiring contract as filler to a 1st round pick big man with a few years left on a rookie contract."

i have not been able to find anything to back up this point on the wizards not wanting melo's contract. all i have seen is a rumor that first included him, then later replaced him with collins.

does anyone have a solid statement that the wizards said "no melo, give us the contract we can dump immediately"? or was it a case of the wizards asking for melo and then ainge saying no?

just curious.

Admittedly, there was some amount of speculation here on my part.

But from what I read it sounded pretty clear that Danny put Melo in the deal.  Melo was on the table.  I believe the Wizards could have had Melo if they wanted him.  But they chose the cap savings over the rookie deal project.

Michael Lee of the Washington Post reported that the Wizards rejected Lee, and wanted the cost savings:

http://www.bulletsforever.com/2013/2/21/4014942/jordan-crawford-trade-wizards-rejected-fab-melo-offer-preferred

Melo you mean. I would've knocked Ainge's teeth off if he had traded Lee for this :P

  I was a little confused as well until I saw the writer's name was Lee and figured out what happened.
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: gar on February 23, 2013, 11:33:10 AM
Danny has brought in some guys that can flat out play for the rest of the season. Chemistry went out the window with so many guys down so you need players.

Interesting that he did not bring J Juan Johnson back and opted for DJ white. Again not going for style but in your face results.

He has been burned with Pruitt, Jjuan, Bass and to an extent Jeff Green. Good guys very smooth; but no killer instinct.

I like this new approach. To replace PP and KG you need people who are going to play with fire every night.
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: LooseCannon on February 23, 2013, 11:34:07 AM
It's the Wizards, so "they are morons" is as reasonable of a hypothesis as "Fab Melo is worthless" if Washington preferred expiring contracts to a rookie big man project.
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: celtics2 on February 23, 2013, 11:41:49 AM
of course it's not Danny's record. It's our fault. We won't blame anyone for our managerial ineptness through the years. Yet the same puppeteers keep showing up. Luckily he tripped over KG and Allen huh? Otherwise he'd be a disaster. In somewhat Danny's defense it's not his fault free agents are not knocking at Boston's door.
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: Roy H. on February 23, 2013, 11:44:45 AM
It's the Wizards, so "they are morons" is as reasonable of a hypothesis as "Fab Melo is worthless" if Washington preferred expiring contracts to a rookie big man project.

Well, Danny's first choice seemed to be to give up Fab Melo over those expiring contracts, as well.
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: LooseCannon on February 23, 2013, 11:51:20 AM
It's the Wizards, so "they are morons" is as reasonable of a hypothesis as "Fab Melo is worthless" if Washington preferred expiring contracts to a rookie big man project.

Well, Danny's first choice seemed to be to give up Fab Melo over those expiring contracts, as well.

I could spin that as Ainge possibly thinking that if he offered Barbosa/Collins, then he would get laughed at. 

I think Ainge went into the deadline with a smart plan of not trading any draft picks and not trading any rotation players unless he gets two rotation players back, unless he could create an unlikely package that would land a star.
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: BballTim on February 23, 2013, 12:02:47 PM
of course it's not Danny's record. It's our fault. We won't blame anyone for our managerial ineptness through the years. Yet the same puppeteers keep showing up. Luckily he tripped over KG and Allen huh? Otherwise he'd be a disaster. In somewhat Danny's defense it's not his fault free agents are not knocking at Boston's door.

  No more a disaster than the Spurs would be if they hadn't tripped over Robinson and Duncan or the Heat would be if they hadn't lucked into Shaq and LeBron or the Mavs would be if Dirk hadn't slipped or the Bulls would have been if Portland had taken MJ over Bowie. Should I go on?
Title: Re: Don't Blame Danny
Post by: KJR on February 23, 2013, 01:00:10 PM
Ainge has done a spectacular job over the past 6 years.

He's put us in position to contend every year.

08 - Championship
09 - 60+ wins, KG, Powe, TA hurt - second round up 3-2; 2 young bigs; great 1st rnd
10 - magnificent run, 2 possessions short of a championship, KG (one leg), no Perk
11 - best team through mid-year; just Shaq short (and Rondo's arm) of challenging Dallas
12 - could've/should've beaten eventual champion (against all odds) - no Bradley, Green/Wilcox out; 6 guys - absolutely no bench: fantastic result

I'm excited to see how this team develops.  Imagine this group with Sullinger, Rondo and another contributing big.

Solid second round team with upside potential.

Better to keep Garnett Pierce always.  It's a franchise legacy thing.  That's why we're not Atlanta.  We're Russell, Havlicek, Bird et. al.  Garnett and Pierce need to train the next group -- for that alone, they should retire here.

Who are the great GMs in the league (besides Ainge)?  Spurs?  OKC?  right?

We've outperformed the Spurs through the playoffs every year (in spite of them having their championship core).  If you're going to measure by Championships and Finals, they've come up shorter than we have the past 6 years.  OKC?  They got Perk to challenge LA and the league completely shifted on them.  They were a better team last year.  (Imagine a small lineup with Ibaka, Durant, Green, Westbrook and Harden.)  They overthought and overtraded.

I think Ainge has done nearly everything in his power the last six years to give Doc a team that could contend.  Perk wasn't coming back.  He got Perk a lifetime deal in OKC -- very, very humane.  This was an act of extreme generosity and shows how much they cared about him as a person.  Perk (that year) wouldn't have gotten us any farther.  Only a healthy Shaq would have gotten us a 50-50 shot at Dallas (see 1st 25 games of that season).  TA wanted a bigger role.  I don't think they could have retained him.  That oversight of attention is possibly the only error I see.

Draft picks?  That's like choosing 2 stocks from 100 and later finding that one of the 98 you didn't pick actually performed a little better.  You make a thorough and rational choice based on the info (and needs) you have and live with the consequences.  It isn't possible (or even necessary) to make a perfect decision in such situations (and failing to do so doesn't diminish a person's accomplishments).

So now Doc is learning the Innovator's Dilemma.  Success becomes the trap that prevents constructive change.  We're moving from a scripted half-court team and strict man-to-man D to something else.  The personnel have changed.  The old lions are only part of the whole.

The questions for me are: who starts?  where?  what's the rotation?  what are the roles?  and how good can this team be?

Ainge is right.  This is an interesting team.  Thank goodness we're not Miami or OKC.

We are and always will be Celtics.  So stand up straight, clean yourselves up, and make sure in your daily lives you live up to the same high standards you expect from this great group of warriors.

Thanks.