Author Topic: Green and Lee both called bad signings  (Read 4537 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Green and Lee both called bad signings
« Reply #30 on: December 05, 2012, 10:03:43 PM »

Offline cman88

  • Ray Allen
  • **
  • Posts: 2755
  • Tommy Points: 196
I think they just had trouble finding their roles earlier on...as long as both help us get to where we want to go this season then they are solid signings.

watching the past 3 games, you can CLEARLY see a vast improvement in both of their play...I think they seem to have found their roles and where they belong.

Green tonight 8points, 4rebounds, 2assits...

in his last 3 games he has averaged 15ppg and 4.3RPG

and while Lee didnt show up on the scoreboard tonight really, I thought he played well defensively

Re: Green and Lee both called bad signings
« Reply #31 on: December 06, 2012, 09:45:01 AM »

Offline 2short

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • ****
  • Posts: 4658
  • Tommy Points: 315
I think they just had trouble finding their roles earlier on...as long as both help us get to where we want to go this season then they are solid signings.

watching the past 3 games, you can CLEARLY see a vast improvement in both of their play...I think they seem to have found their roles and where they belong.

Green tonight 8points, 4rebounds, 2assits...

in his last 3 games he has averaged 15ppg and 4.3RPG

and while Lee didnt show up on the scoreboard tonight really, I thought he played well defensively
I'm actually wondering if they are purposely limiting Green's minutes to start season with regards to heart.  Last night he looked really good and basically got those points right off the bat.  Later on he really only played spot minutes.  If we give him the ball on the box or driving he looks like one of our best offensive weapons.

Re: Green and Lee both called bad signings
« Reply #32 on: December 06, 2012, 09:47:15 AM »

Online BudweiserCeltic

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12194
  • Tommy Points: 1173
I think they just had trouble finding their roles earlier on...as long as both help us get to where we want to go this season then they are solid signings.

watching the past 3 games, you can CLEARLY see a vast improvement in both of their play...I think they seem to have found their roles and where they belong.

Green tonight 8points, 4rebounds, 2assits...

in his last 3 games he has averaged 15ppg and 4.3RPG

and while Lee didnt show up on the scoreboard tonight really, I thought he played well defensively
I'm actually wondering if they are purposely limiting Green's minutes to start season with regards to heart.  Last night he looked really good and basically got those points right off the bat.  Later on he really only played spot minutes.  If we give him the ball on the box or driving he looks like one of our best offensive weapons.

The better Green plays, it seems the less Doc plays him. I wonder too if he's limiting his minutes myself.

Re: Green and Lee both called bad signings
« Reply #33 on: December 06, 2012, 10:04:25 AM »

Offline 2short

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • ****
  • Posts: 4658
  • Tommy Points: 315
I think they just had trouble finding their roles earlier on...as long as both help us get to where we want to go this season then they are solid signings.

watching the past 3 games, you can CLEARLY see a vast improvement in both of their play...I think they seem to have found their roles and where they belong.

Green tonight 8points, 4rebounds, 2assits...

in his last 3 games he has averaged 15ppg and 4.3RPG

and while Lee didnt show up on the scoreboard tonight really, I thought he played well defensively
I'm actually wondering if they are purposely limiting Green's minutes to start season with regards to heart.  Last night he looked really good and basically got those points right off the bat.  Later on he really only played spot minutes.  If we give him the ball on the box or driving he looks like one of our best offensive weapons.

The better Green plays, it seems the less Doc plays him. I wonder too if he's limiting his minutes myself.
great minds think alike  ;) ;)

Re: Green and Lee both called bad signings
« Reply #34 on: December 06, 2012, 10:13:58 AM »

Offline CDawg834

  • Jeff Green
  • Posts: 619
  • Tommy Points: 56
Man, some people are getting really bent out of shape over Hollinger's assessment.  Yeah he's in love with his advanced stats, but is anything he said really that controversial?

I'm sure part of the reason he's jumping on this in December is so he can say "See? I told you this was a bad signing 3 months ago!"  In fact, he called it the worst contract of the summer.  But I don't know how anyone here can say that Jeff Green at $9 mil a year for 4 years was a good signing.

Re: Green and Lee both called bad signings
« Reply #35 on: December 06, 2012, 10:18:21 AM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17982
  • Tommy Points: 636
Man, some people are getting really bent out of shape over Hollinger's assessment.  Yeah he's in love with his advanced stats, but is anything he said really that controversial?

I'm sure part of the reason he's jumping on this in December is so he can say "See? I told you this was a bad signing 3 months ago!"  In fact, he called it the worst contract of the summer.  But I don't know how anyone here can say that Jeff Green at $9 mil a year for 4 years was a good signing.

Well, he is also jumping it on December because his editors told him he needs a column, and in reality, there are only so many columns a statistician can write for the mainstream, so he needs to regurgitate the same ideas all the time.

Re: Green and Lee both called bad signings
« Reply #36 on: December 06, 2012, 10:19:14 AM »

Offline foulweatherfan

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12686
  • Tommy Points: 1541
I think they just had trouble finding their roles earlier on...as long as both help us get to where we want to go this season then they are solid signings.

watching the past 3 games, you can CLEARLY see a vast improvement in both of their play...I think they seem to have found their roles and where they belong.

Green tonight 8points, 4rebounds, 2assits...

in his last 3 games he has averaged 15ppg and 4.3RPG

and while Lee didnt show up on the scoreboard tonight really, I thought he played well defensively
I'm actually wondering if they are purposely limiting Green's minutes to start season with regards to heart.  Last night he looked really good and basically got those points right off the bat.  Later on he really only played spot minutes.  If we give him the ball on the box or driving he looks like one of our best offensive weapons.

It's probably not just his heart, but general conditioning.  Every player I've ever heard discuss it says there's absolutely nothing that can condition you fully for playing in an NBA game - you've got to play into shape to some degree no matter what shape you're in.

Green's been out of the league for a year and probably had to rest extensively after his surgery.  It makes sense that he'd have some stamina issues no matter how fit he looks.

Re: Green and Lee both called bad signings
« Reply #37 on: December 06, 2012, 10:34:16 AM »

Offline SHAQATTACK

  • NCE
  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9640
  • Tommy Points: 506
Like for Doc to step up , and let Green Start a few game to see HOW it would work out.  He may be a starter type player

Green is also a west coast oriented player, he needs years of playing hard nose beat/bang NBA ball to change his style and attitude .

I would start him , play him like full quater and see what he can do.

I like this line up, they played great everytime they were in at the same time. ... I would like to see this line up start a game.

KG
Green
Sully
Rondo
Jet 


Re: Green and Lee both called bad signings
« Reply #38 on: December 06, 2012, 11:49:17 AM »

Online BudweiserCeltic

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12194
  • Tommy Points: 1173
I'm sure part of the reason he's jumping on this in December is so he can say "See? I told you this was a bad signing 3 months ago!"  In fact, he called it the worst contract of the summer.  But I don't know how anyone here can say that Jeff Green at $9 mil a year for 4 years was a good signing.

Because analysts alike keep ignoring cap situation, season's goal, the new CBA, the team make-up, the possible alternative, youth talent + tradeable asset.

The question is, who'd you rather have at this point in time than Jeff Green, and does the Jeff Green signing prevented that acquisition in any way?

We can moan and cry all we want about Jeff Green deserving this contract or not, but from both a business perspective and a basketball perspective, I'm hard pressed to find this supposed big downside to the Jeff Green signing to garner so much negative attention.

Re: Green and Lee both called bad signings
« Reply #39 on: December 06, 2012, 11:55:03 AM »

Offline ssspence

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • ****
  • Posts: 4578
  • Tommy Points: 264
  • James Naismith to Dickey Betts for the jam.....
Bad signings as of now.




I think Lee has a better chance to make good on his deal just because of the lower value.

I agree. Its pretty hard to argue otherwise. Lee will improve and / or is pretty tradable.

My understanding is that the Cs wanted to do right by Green, both because they think he's a great kid -- they really like him and hope he can grow into that contract -- but in no small part because they wanted to show NBA players that they take care of their guys, even those who go through hard times.... that Boston is a great place to sign, not just to be traded to / drafted to and play.

Still -- his contract is extremely hard to understand. They were bidding against themselves at that dollar amount and year total. Anyone who says they weren't perplexed when they read the news is fibbing....

Re: Green and Lee both called bad signings
« Reply #40 on: December 06, 2012, 12:26:37 PM »

Online MBunge

  • Ray Allen
  • **
  • Posts: 2265
  • Tommy Points: 197
Last night's game against the T-wolves was perhaps the best example yet of why Green was not just a good, but a vital signing for Boston.  Pierce had some moments in the game, but overall did not play well.  That didn't become a bigger problem because Doc only had to play him 25 minutes.  Even though Green didn't have a spectacular game himself, Boston simply must have a viable alternative for the games when Pierce just doesn't have it.

Mike

Re: Green and Lee both called bad signings
« Reply #41 on: December 06, 2012, 12:27:27 PM »

Offline the_Bird

  • Bailey Howell
  • ***
  • Posts: 3185
  • Tommy Points: 165
Bad signings as of now.




I think Lee has a better chance to make good on his deal just because of the lower value.

I agree. Its pretty hard to argue otherwise. Lee will improve and / or is pretty tradable.

My understanding is that the Cs wanted to do right by Green, both because they think he's a great kid -- they really like him and hope he can grow into that contract -- but in no small part because they wanted to show NBA players that they take care of their guys, even those who go through hard times.... that Boston is a great place to sign, not just to be traded to / drafted to and play.

Still -- his contract is extremely hard to understand. They were bidding against themselves at that dollar amount and year total. Anyone who says they weren't perplexed when they read the news is fibbing....

Well, Boston NEEDED a decent small-forward, and since they had already spent the MLE on JET and didn't have much for trade assets, pretty much the only guy they could sign based on the CBA's logistics was Green.  It was either re-sign Green or pick up someone with only the LLE/vet-min contract. 

Re: Green and Lee both called bad signings
« Reply #42 on: December 06, 2012, 12:33:55 PM »

Offline ssspence

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • ****
  • Posts: 4578
  • Tommy Points: 264
  • James Naismith to Dickey Betts for the jam.....
Bad signings as of now.




I think Lee has a better chance to make good on his deal just because of the lower value.

I agree. Its pretty hard to argue otherwise. Lee will improve and / or is pretty tradable.

My understanding is that the Cs wanted to do right by Green, both because they think he's a great kid -- they really like him and hope he can grow into that contract -- but in no small part because they wanted to show NBA players that they take care of their guys, even those who go through hard times.... that Boston is a great place to sign, not just to be traded to / drafted to and play.

Still -- his contract is extremely hard to understand. They were bidding against themselves at that dollar amount and year total. Anyone who says they weren't perplexed when they read the news is fibbing....

Well, Boston NEEDED a decent small-forward, and since they had already spent the MLE on JET and didn't have much for trade assets, pretty much the only guy they could sign based on the CBA's logistics was Green.  It was either re-sign Green or pick up someone with only the LLE/vet-min contract.

Not suggesting that they shouldn't have signed him. I'm saying his contract is poor, and was likely unnecessary.

Re: Green and Lee both called bad signings
« Reply #43 on: December 06, 2012, 12:38:36 PM »

Offline the_Bird

  • Bailey Howell
  • ***
  • Posts: 3185
  • Tommy Points: 165
Bad signings as of now.




I think Lee has a better chance to make good on his deal just because of the lower value.

I agree. Its pretty hard to argue otherwise. Lee will improve and / or is pretty tradable.

My understanding is that the Cs wanted to do right by Green, both because they think he's a great kid -- they really like him and hope he can grow into that contract -- but in no small part because they wanted to show NBA players that they take care of their guys, even those who go through hard times.... that Boston is a great place to sign, not just to be traded to / drafted to and play.

Still -- his contract is extremely hard to understand. They were bidding against themselves at that dollar amount and year total. Anyone who says they weren't perplexed when they read the news is fibbing....

Well, Boston NEEDED a decent small-forward, and since they had already spent the MLE on JET and didn't have much for trade assets, pretty much the only guy they could sign based on the CBA's logistics was Green.  It was either re-sign Green or pick up someone with only the LLE/vet-min contract.

Not suggesting that they shouldn't have signed him. I'm saying his contract is poor, and was likely unnecessary.

I don't disagree; they paid more than what Green's value likely would have been without all the CBA issues.

But, while the C's may have been the only team seriously bidding for Jeff Green's services, Jeff Green being really the only small forward that Boston could realistically bring aboard to spell Pierce significantly weakened their own bargaining position.  If they only offered Green an MLE-level deal and he walked, the C's would be pretty well hosed.  You'd be counting on Kris Joseph and maybe a vet-min guy to keep Pierce's minutes in check.

The C's were *not* bargaining from a position of strength.

The question in my mind; should JET have been the priority, or should they have explored signing a small forward earlier in the free agency process?

Re: Green and Lee both called bad signings
« Reply #44 on: December 06, 2012, 01:02:34 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22632
  • Tommy Points: 1041
Bad signings as of now.




I think Lee has a better chance to make good on his deal just because of the lower value.

I agree. Its pretty hard to argue otherwise. Lee will improve and / or is pretty tradable.

My understanding is that the Cs wanted to do right by Green, both because they think he's a great kid -- they really like him and hope he can grow into that contract -- but in no small part because they wanted to show NBA players that they take care of their guys, even those who go through hard times.... that Boston is a great place to sign, not just to be traded to / drafted to and play.

Still -- his contract is extremely hard to understand. They were bidding against themselves at that dollar amount and year total. Anyone who says they weren't perplexed when they read the news is fibbing....

 The notion that the Celts purposefully overpaid Green in order to send a positive message to future free agents is ridiculous. I think it's more a case of people not knowing which teams were looking at Green than those teams not existing.

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsBlog Forums.

Welcome to CelticsBlog