Celtics offered Mikki Moore a contract!

[cordobes]

I really don't see how it makes sense to grade an off-season before a season is over.  If we had lost to the Lakers last year, everyone would've been screaming that Danny didn't put enough peices around the Big Three to win a title.

Well people are saying that this year, but what happens if, and I know this is mind-blowing, the actually win it again this year??  Can you really say a championship team had a bad off season??

Of course you can.  You don't judge decisions simply on results.  Some times, good decisions lead to poor results (due to outside factors), and other times bad decisions lead to good results.  As the saying goes, hindsight is 20/20.  That's why I think it's fair to judge things contemporaneously. 

I thought the whole point of a season was to win a championship??  There's no way you're going to tell me that if the Celtics win the title this year, they had a bad off season.  Unless they signed huge, crippling contracts, it just doesn't make sense.  And they haven't done that.

I'm not saying Danny has put the best team together that he possibly could've.  And truthfully, we have no way of knowing that.  We don't know what players could've been had.  Chris Andersen and a number of other players would've been better than O'Bryant in hindsight, and maybe a guy like Matt Barnes would've been a better pickup than TA.  But we don't know which players had a desire to come to Boston.

Well, it depends on what you think was Ainge's job this off-season: maximize/increase this team chances of winning more titles; or just keep the team competitive enough to have a chance of winning the title (and that's all you need to win it all).

If you believe it was the second one, than he did a good job and you don't need to wait for the outcome to know that - this team still has a chance of winning the championship. But it's very hard for a GM to transform a championship team into a team with no chance of repeating though, so I don't know how useful is your standard.

When did I say that Ainge has done a good job this off season?  I never said that.  I just don't see the reasoning behind claiming it was a horrible off season when the season is still going on.  Especially before we even know what the playoff roster is going to be.

Nobody said you did that. The off-season is over by now, isn't it? I agree with you about the playoff roster, I'm assuming we'll only sign Mikki Moore and another player.

The point remains: it's nonsensical to base the assessment of what a GM did on the off-season on the final results with the benefit of hindsight.

I think there's a lot of revisionist history from posters who think Danny did a great job last year putting the right pieces around Danny.  As far up as the first round of the playoffs, when we were having trouble with the Hawks, people were screaming at Danny saying that he didn't put enough players around The Big Three.  But winning has a funny way of making people forget all that.

Who cares? I was happy with the roster last season as soon as PJ Brown signed. But this has nothing to do with the situation this season.

[Fafnir]

That's unfortunate.

So...  are people willing to admit that Danny's "plan" wasn't brilliant after all, and that the off-season was a mess?  I think he's a pretty good GM, too, and the title last season was magnificent.  This year, though, has been...  lackluster.

Yes. But his options were much more limited. Once he decided to wait for Posey to search for that fourth year it left him with far fewer options than I liked.

My hope is that this contract is a minimum offer and that it will not preclude us from pursuing Joe Smith were he to become available. Joe Smith is enough of a superior player that I hope they'd pay to have both if he were to shake lose.

It was actually pretty easy to see in the summer what's going on here. We're watching our pennies and nickels, and that's the priority, not a title.

Sure is easy to be mad about it when they aren't your nickels. The team committed a ton of money and to being above the luxury tax for last year and the next several to try and win. To criticize every subsequent move as penny pinching seems to be missing the big picture. The one that includes three max level players.

Money is a factor in their decision making, but I firmly believe winning is their priority.

whose nickels are they, Faf, if the team doesn't make it past (or even to) the ECF?

I still firmly believe that even if the main reasoning is financial, the worst money decision this ownership could make would be to not make it at least back to the Finals.

how much money is lost on 4-8 more sold out home playoff games?

if that was the rationale, then they were being (as the saying goes) "penny wise and pound foolish." The revenue that they would see from another Title would certainly outweigh the contracts to the last couple bench players.

Just start watching CLE and ORL. These teams are not going to be easy outs. Then you have some upstarts like CHI, MIA, ATL.....This could be another very scary playoff run.

One thing that could be possible is that maybe the Cs didn't offer him very much. The article doesn't say where our offer was amongst the several Moore appeared to get. Maybe they just tossed out a low-ball offer...who knows?

I actually don't believe money is a factor in choosing Moore over anyone else. I just find it silly that people believe that which waiver wire big man we try to pick up is based on money

I also think the C's are spending a ton to put out a championship contender so to call them cheap is somewhat silly. It is not like they are the Nets with the third lowest payroll.

[the_Bird]

I was joking about the playing with Rondo comment...   Kidd during that period was one of the best players I've ever seen.  I do think it's fair, though, to expect that his play might look a little better playing in Boston than what he's shown in Sacramento, playing with Udrih.  If he can catch the ball, he should be able to clean stuff up and benefit from attention being paid elsewhere, a la The Perkulator.  

In any case, there isn't a better big man available TODAY.  With no assurance that Joe Smith is going anywhere - and if he is bought out, no assurance that he's not going back to Cleveland - you grab the best available player today.  He's not great, but he doesn't have to be; he's got length and experience, two things that we're very short of (no pun intended) in the frontcourt.

[EJPLAYA]

(...)
I think Moore, playing with the other 4 starters could be extremely effective in that he plays a tough, physical game and his strengths are rebounding and shot blocking.

I've seen this often repeated these last few days. But Moore is not a good shot-blocker. Never was and never will be.

MM has career averages of 0.6 blocks per game, 1.1 per 36 minutes and a Blk% of 2.3%. And he has been declining, so this season he's averaging 0.3, 0.7 and 1.4%. These are not even average numbers.

Just for the sake of comparison, Joe Smith, who isn't a shot-blocker either, averages 0.7 per game, 1.4 per 36, 2.8 blk% this season - basically doubling Moore's numbers.

Scot Pollard averaged 0.7 per game, 1.5 per 36, 2.9 blk%. Even the extremely undersized Leon Powe is currently a better shot-blocker than Mikki Moore.

I never said he was good at it just that it is one of his strengths. And given the quality of the rest of his game, it is one of his strengths. he's not a great player or even a really good player. But he is physical and his best strengths are rebounding and shot blocking. He may not be a very good shot blocker, but it is one of the better parts of his very limited game.

That's kind of a stretch there nick. If the guy isn't very good at his only strengths, wouldn't that mean he has no strengths?! That he stinks?!

[ManUp]

After reading a lot of the posts, and arguments around here, I'm not sure Moore is an upgrade over Powe, and BBD. If that is the case we don't need him, and I don't want him. I really hope Smith is bought out and signs here.

Hopeful he turns downt the offer.

[winsomme]

Nobody said you did that. The off-season is over by now, isn't it? I agree with you about the playoff roster, I'm assuming we'll only sign Mikki Moore and another player.

The point remains: it's nonsensical to base the assessment of what a GM did on the off-season on the final results with the benefit of hindsight.

I think there's a lot of revisionist history from posters who think Danny did a great job last year putting the right pieces around Danny.  As far up as the first round of the playoffs, when we were having trouble with the Hawks, people were screaming at Danny saying that he didn't put enough players around The Big Three.  But winning has a funny way of making people forget all that.

Who cares? I was happy with the roster last season as soon as PJ Brown signed. But this has nothing to do with the situation this season.

the off-season is over, but my question would be what is the value of looking at the off-season in isolation?

plus, you may have been comfortable with the team last year prior to the pick up of PJ, but certainly winning  the Title is what solidified the quality of the moves leading up it. That is to say, rounding out the Big 3 with Eddie and Posey looked a lot better based on how everything turned out.

I agree that looking at this off-season (in terms of replenishing the bench) on its own looks poor, but i'm just not sure of what the overall importance is of that fact if we actually win it all or fill out the bench well over the next few days...

[celticinorlando]

moore would allow davis and powe to play more power forward...which is a great help. moore can shoot a nice 10-15 jumper. if he can get 8-10 points off the bench a night...grab boards and defend then that is a big upgrade. he adds length in the middle. he was with a poor kings team. i expect him to raise his game because now he has a chance at winning. when he was with the nets he gve the cavs fits in the playoff that one year. honestly i don't think smith is going to get bought out. now the real work begins...boston is either going to wait up until the deadline for marbury or they are going to have to find another wing ASAP

[CelticsWhat35]

moore would allow davis and powe to play more power forward...which is a great help. moore can shoot a nice 10-15 jumper. if he can get 8-10 points off the bench a night...

I think you need to lower your expectations of what Moore could bring to the team, at least in terms of stats.

[cordobes]

(...)
I think Moore, playing with the other 4 starters could be extremely effective in that he plays a tough, physical game and his strengths are rebounding and shot blocking.

I've seen this often repeated these last few days. But Moore is not a good shot-blocker. Never was and never will be.

MM has career averages of 0.6 blocks per game, 1.1 per 36 minutes and a Blk% of 2.3%. And he has been declining, so this season he's averaging 0.3, 0.7 and 1.4%. These are not even average numbers.

Just for the sake of comparison, Joe Smith, who isn't a shot-blocker either, averages 0.7 per game, 1.4 per 36, 2.8 blk% this season - basically doubling Moore's numbers.

Scot Pollard averaged 0.7 per game, 1.5 per 36, 2.9 blk%. Even the extremely undersized Leon Powe is currently a better shot-blocker than Mikki Moore.

I never said he was good at it just that it is one of his strengths. And given the quality of the rest of his game, it is one of his strengths. he's not a great player or even a really good player. But he is physical and his best strengths are rebounding and shot blocking. He may not be a very good shot blocker, but it is one of the better parts of his very limited game.

I disagree. If shot-blocking and rebounding were the best parts of his game, he'd be out of the league by now. He's a aprox. 12% Treb% throughout most of his career - that's nothing to write home about or nothing Scal hasn't done as well.

IMO, Moore's strenghts would be:
1. transition play
2. mid-range game
3. good cutter on half-court sets
4. the ability to contest shots aggressively because he can move his feet quickly (although he's frequently out of position...)

And he always plays very hard, that certainly matters.

I'm not opposed to this signing, I prefer to have Moore than to just keep the current roster. However, he's another player best suited to be the 9th man in a good team. And how many of those we already have? I'd be more comfortable with a couple of true quality players sitting on the bench.

[the_Bird]

9th man on a good team sounds right.  We're a good team, and we could use more depth; if there's someone out there not named Joe Smith that we could acquire who's better, I'd like to hear the name.  Anyone expecting him to come in and play 20 minutes a game and make a big difference, will be disappointed.  I expect him to come in, play a few minutes most nights, play a little more against cetain matchups, run the floor and be pesky on defense.  A difference maker?  Hells no - but another option, a different look to have defensively, and a guy who could be moderately effective when we're playing uptempo ball.  Garbage-man. 

And, let's forget completely about Rasho Nesterovic.  If Bird refuses to buy out Tinsley, he's not buying out Rasho!

[Steve Weinman]

Some of you guys are blatantly showing that you did not watch Mikki play with the Nets. The guy will look great with our stars.

One career year playing with Kidd does not make a player. 

Well, how good's he going to look playing with Rondo? 

one good game against a team that plays no defense is hardly considered a success...

Oh, you're really going to hate today's Babble, Andy...

I'm not opposed to this signing, I prefer to have Moore than to just keep the current roster. However, he's another player best suited to be the 9th man in a good team. And how many of those we already have? I'd be more comfortable with a couple of true quality players sitting on the bench.

Thanks for saving me the typing, cordobes.  That summed up y exact thoughts far more concisely than I would have.

-sw

[Fan from VT]

Here's one reason I have hopes for the move is that often times Doc goes with Scal and Davis because he doesn't like davis and powe at the same time, and powe really can't defend the center that well. However, Powe is our best bench rebounder and scorer, so if having Moore be able to very adequately defend the center with his length that we were really lacking allows the team to play more Powe at the 4, that could really benefit us.

[guava_wrench]

(...)
I think Moore, playing with the other 4 starters could be extremely effective in that he plays a tough, physical game and his strengths are rebounding and shot blocking.

I've seen this often repeated these last few days. But Moore is not a good shot-blocker. Never was and never will be.

MM has career averages of 0.6 blocks per game, 1.1 per 36 minutes and a Blk% of 2.3%. And he has been declining, so this season he's averaging 0.3, 0.7 and 1.4%. These are not even average numbers.

Just for the sake of comparison, Joe Smith, who isn't a shot-blocker either, averages 0.7 per game, 1.4 per 36, 2.8 blk% this season - basically doubling Moore's numbers.

Scot Pollard averaged 0.7 per game, 1.5 per 36, 2.9 blk%. Even the extremely undersized Leon Powe is currently a better shot-blocker than Mikki Moore.

I never said he was good at it just that it is one of his strengths. And given the quality of the rest of his game, it is one of his strengths. he's not a great player or even a really good player. But he is physical and his best strengths are rebounding and shot blocking. He may not be a very good shot blocker, but it is one of the better parts of his very limited game.

I disagree. If shot-blocking and rebounding were the best parts of his game, he'd be out of the league by now. He's a aprox. 12% Treb% throughout most of his career - that's nothing to write home about or nothing Scal hasn't done as well.

IMO, Moore's strenghts would be:
1. transition play
2. mid-range game
3. good cutter on half-court sets
4. the ability to contest shots aggressively because he can move his feet quickly (although he's frequently out of position...)

And he always plays very hard, that certainly matters.

I'm not opposed to this signing, I prefer to have Moore than to just keep the current roster. However, he's another player best suited to be the 9th man in a good team. And how many of those we already have? I'd be more comfortable with a couple of true quality players sitting on the bench.

Gives Rondo another guy to throw alley-oops to.

[acieEarl]

After reading a lot of the posts, and arguments around here, I'm not sure Moore is an upgrade over Powe, and BBD. If that is the case we don't need him, and I don't want him. I really hope Smith is bought out and signs here.

Hopeful he turns downt the offer.

No question Moore is not an upgrade over Powe or BBaby. I not sure J Smith would be an upgrade. Moore gives you length with his height that BBaby and Powe just don't have. Again we are picking out of the trash barrell. Cleveland can offer Smith a little more cash so he might get released and end up in Cleveland anyway. I'm fine with picking up Moore. We still got room to pick up another body after Moore.

[RAcker]

I love the camp that thinks if Ainge pulls the trigger on Mikki Moore and Joe Smith becomes hypothetically availabe via buyout that somehow he failed.  The only way he fails is if both are knowingly available and he chooses Moore over Smith anyway , right?

Sometimes I weep for the human race.