What would it take for us to acquire Marc Gasol?

[Beat LA]

I get worked up because I don't like to go around in circles, it's honestly tiring. It makes the whole effort to try and explain things meaningless if there's a perception, which is what I've had so far in this discussion, of unwillingness to learn or at least listen and consider.

Well, you would know .  I am listening to you, but I'm also trying to point out an area which you seemed to have overlooked, as in the amount of money teams can give to their own free agents versus every other club, whether it's the new or old CBA. 

I didn't overlook it, I just don't see how that has any relevance. So I'll bite, how is that relevant to the discussion?

I admit, I don't remember a time when the Celtics ever had the financial capacity to sign a top-tier free agent, so I oppose this is where you're going to stop reading. 

Funny thing, I don't either... and that's the point, we haven't been in the position to spend money.

However, I also think it's important to point out that whenever the top landing spots for these guys are mentioned, Boston is NEVER in the discussion, whether we're contending or not.  You don't always have to have a ton of money to attract guys to your club, and yet, even when the Fantastic Four were here, we were still not a primary destination.  All I've ever seen is guys willing to take sometimes substantial pay cuts to sign somewhere like New York, LA, Chicago, and Miami, but that is never the case here, no matter what stage our team is in.  Guys have said in the past that Boston is, "too cold," in addition to other bogus reasons for not coming here. 

I'm sorry, but what? You don't always need a ton of money to attract guys? When the "Fantastic Four" were here as you put it, the most we had to offer a free-agent was between 5-6 million, a MLE contract... which was even less because of Ainge fondness of using part of the MLE to lock 2nd rounders to cheap multi year deals. While teams with cap space would offer $18 million+ per year. So what's the point you're trying to make here.

Yes, Boston as a City is not the most desirable destination, doesn't mean if we have a the right roster + money that we wouldn't be an attractive destination (as any team would be).

So once again, your point is falling short.

That said, within the group of players that were in range to be acquired with the MLE we did acquire some of the top crop free-agents (Wallace, both O'neals, Jason Terry).

The bottom line is that we have to build through the draft, trades, and an occasional buy-low-sell-high free agent like Evan Turner, in order to make a great team.  The Lakers, always attract the big names, even when their team is going nowhere, because it's LA.  Woo.  Ask yourself this question - when Jerry West signed Shaq, how bad were the Lakers?  Right.  They were transitioning, at best, and yet Shaq still went there instead of staying in Orlando or deciding to go somewhere else.  That's what I'm talking about.  I'm terribly sorry if I've upset you or something, because that was never my intention.

Who said anything about other destinations, like the Lakers, not having a more often than not advantage over the Celtics as a destination? I sure haven't. I'm just not subscribing to this exaggerated argument of yours that no one would come here via free-agency, particularly with the logical fallacy (haven't signed a big agent with no money to offer them) you're employing.

Funny you mention the Lakers, as for Shaq, he simply went to the team that offer the most money. $120 million for 7 years is quite attractive. So, don't see what's the point here as well. He followed the money, as many others do.

What happened to Dwight? What happened this last off season when they had plenty of cap room and came up empty? Should we now start calling the Lakers as an undesirable destination?

I mean, contrary to the Celtics history, they've actually had the cap space to get these big named players, heck they had one in their possession (and how you're so happily to point out able to offer more money than anyone in the market to him), yet they struck out there as well.

Listen, I would be more than happy to see that I'm wrong somewhere down the line, and if I am, I'll point to you and the other people on here who make this same case, but I just don't see it.  Look at when Amare Stoudemire went to the Knicks after they had missed out on Lebron - that team was garbage.  It's not all about basketball, and, if the Celtics and Knicks had been in exactly the same position during the 2010 offseason, with the ability to offer the same amount of money, where do you think he would have gone?  My money is on New York.

So your argument right now is based on hypotheticals on your personal assumptions. Cool.

Additionally, in the past, top free agents have taken considerably less money to play on a contender, so that's what I meant by that.  Do you define a top free agent as one of the game's brightest stars, or do you look at who the best players are in a given free agent class?  If it's the former, we've never gotten any of those guys, even though we could have given them considerably more money to stay here had we traded for them as an expiring, like Chris Paul, but he wouldn't agree to an extension. 

What do you consider "considerably less money"? There's quite a difference between Max money and what we could offer (5-6 million or less). Find me these superstars that are leaving that amount of money on the table.

And you keep bringing up Chris Paul... how many times do I have to mention that was his stance with EVERY team?

And once again, trading takes trade partners. It isn't a "hey Loser Team, here are my expirings give me your STAR!!" and gets it done.

I realize that as long as I've been watching (since 04-05), Boston has never had the kind of financial capability to really go after top tier guys, but I think that that falls mainly on Ainge, because whenever he makes a big trade, like Antoine for Raef, or KG and Pierce for Humphries and Wallace, he always seems to saddle our payroll with at least one horrible, unmovable, contract, so how could we have ever had any flexibility?

OK... how is that relevant, in fact that's what I've been saying. Which pretty much contradict the premise with which you began your argument.

If you're going to trade Garnett and Pierce, why oh why would you ever want to take back Crash's contract?  Wouldn't it have been easier to amnesty Jason Terry and reconfigure the deal to give us another immediate expiring in addition to Humphries and draft picks?  I'll never forgive Danny for trading those guys.  Couldn't we have had similar flexibility by jettisoning Terry (no pun intended ) and allowing Pierce's contract to come off the books at the end of this last season, or no?  Garnett had taken a significant pay cut when he signed the extension in 2012, so it's not like we would have had a $20 million contract around our neck.  It's a serious question.  Again, I'm not trolling or anything like that.

Things simply don't work that way.

Amare Stoudemire getting the max on a crap team that had been the laughing stock of the league for 6-7 years is a hypothetical situation?  Um, wow

I also understand how trading works, so try not to be so condescending.  Every situation is different, anyway.  Some clubs want players and picks in return as part of a deal, while a team at the bottom with one star might be more inclined to accept expiring contracts to help their rebuild by fielding the worst possible team - it's not a one size fits all policy, as you seem to believe.

By considerably less money, I mean guys like Ray Allen, Vince Carter, Elton Brand, Rashard Lewis, and Danny Granger who have signed on for sometimes minimum deals to play on a contender.  Each of those guys has made an all-star team, and even in the case of the Celtics when Ray left, Garnett took a pretty substancial pay cut to try and give Danny more flexibility to bring the band back together, but Ray left.  What about David West when he initially signed with the Pacers, Luol Deng this year when he signed with the Heat, Steve Nash when he signed with the Lakers, Shawn Marion when he signed with Cleveland?  You also have to consider guys like Dirk and Tim Duncan who have signed on for less for the betterment of their respective teams.  Jason Kidd signed with the Knicks for $3.1 million, Chauncey Billups played for $6 million over 2 years for the Clippers, and just a year ago, Monta Ellis signed with the Mavs for $25.1 million over 3 years.  Richard Hamilton signed with Chicago for $15 million over 3 years,  Pau Gasol signed with the Bulls for $22 million over 3 years, Baron Davis when he signed with the Clippers and Knicks, and even Tracy McGrady played for the minimum in the final two years of his career.  How many more examples do you need?  Some of these guys were at the end, but the majority of them still had plenty left in the tank when they latched on to a contender.  All of these guys were All Stars.

Oh yeah, and why can't things work out that way, or is that just based on hypotheticals and your personal assumptions?  Cool.

[Endless Paradise]

You're operating under the assumption that the Nets would have done the deal without being able to dump Wallace.  It appears that was a very crucial sticking point for Brooklyn.

[BudweiserCeltic]

I get worked up because I don't like to go around in circles, it's honestly tiring. It makes the whole effort to try and explain things meaningless if there's a perception, which is what I've had so far in this discussion, of unwillingness to learn or at least listen and consider.

Well, you would know .  I am listening to you, but I'm also trying to point out an area which you seemed to have overlooked, as in the amount of money teams can give to their own free agents versus every other club, whether it's the new or old CBA. 

I didn't overlook it, I just don't see how that has any relevance. So I'll bite, how is that relevant to the discussion?

I admit, I don't remember a time when the Celtics ever had the financial capacity to sign a top-tier free agent, so I oppose this is where you're going to stop reading. 

Funny thing, I don't either... and that's the point, we haven't been in the position to spend money.

However, I also think it's important to point out that whenever the top landing spots for these guys are mentioned, Boston is NEVER in the discussion, whether we're contending or not.  You don't always have to have a ton of money to attract guys to your club, and yet, even when the Fantastic Four were here, we were still not a primary destination.  All I've ever seen is guys willing to take sometimes substantial pay cuts to sign somewhere like New York, LA, Chicago, and Miami, but that is never the case here, no matter what stage our team is in.  Guys have said in the past that Boston is, "too cold," in addition to other bogus reasons for not coming here. 

I'm sorry, but what? You don't always need a ton of money to attract guys? When the "Fantastic Four" were here as you put it, the most we had to offer a free-agent was between 5-6 million, a MLE contract... which was even less because of Ainge fondness of using part of the MLE to lock 2nd rounders to cheap multi year deals. While teams with cap space would offer $18 million+ per year. So what's the point you're trying to make here.

Yes, Boston as a City is not the most desirable destination, doesn't mean if we have a the right roster + money that we wouldn't be an attractive destination (as any team would be).

So once again, your point is falling short.

That said, within the group of players that were in range to be acquired with the MLE we did acquire some of the top crop free-agents (Wallace, both O'neals, Jason Terry).

The bottom line is that we have to build through the draft, trades, and an occasional buy-low-sell-high free agent like Evan Turner, in order to make a great team.  The Lakers, always attract the big names, even when their team is going nowhere, because it's LA.  Woo.  Ask yourself this question - when Jerry West signed Shaq, how bad were the Lakers?  Right.  They were transitioning, at best, and yet Shaq still went there instead of staying in Orlando or deciding to go somewhere else.  That's what I'm talking about.  I'm terribly sorry if I've upset you or something, because that was never my intention.

Who said anything about other destinations, like the Lakers, not having a more often than not advantage over the Celtics as a destination? I sure haven't. I'm just not subscribing to this exaggerated argument of yours that no one would come here via free-agency, particularly with the logical fallacy (haven't signed a big agent with no money to offer them) you're employing.

Funny you mention the Lakers, as for Shaq, he simply went to the team that offer the most money. $120 million for 7 years is quite attractive. So, don't see what's the point here as well. He followed the money, as many others do.

What happened to Dwight? What happened this last off season when they had plenty of cap room and came up empty? Should we now start calling the Lakers as an undesirable destination?

I mean, contrary to the Celtics history, they've actually had the cap space to get these big named players, heck they had one in their possession (and how you're so happily to point out able to offer more money than anyone in the market to him), yet they struck out there as well.

Listen, I would be more than happy to see that I'm wrong somewhere down the line, and if I am, I'll point to you and the other people on here who make this same case, but I just don't see it.  Look at when Amare Stoudemire went to the Knicks after they had missed out on Lebron - that team was garbage.  It's not all about basketball, and, if the Celtics and Knicks had been in exactly the same position during the 2010 offseason, with the ability to offer the same amount of money, where do you think he would have gone?  My money is on New York.

So your argument right now is based on hypotheticals on your personal assumptions. Cool.

Additionally, in the past, top free agents have taken considerably less money to play on a contender, so that's what I meant by that.  Do you define a top free agent as one of the game's brightest stars, or do you look at who the best players are in a given free agent class?  If it's the former, we've never gotten any of those guys, even though we could have given them considerably more money to stay here had we traded for them as an expiring, like Chris Paul, but he wouldn't agree to an extension. 

What do you consider "considerably less money"? There's quite a difference between Max money and what we could offer (5-6 million or less). Find me these superstars that are leaving that amount of money on the table.

And you keep bringing up Chris Paul... how many times do I have to mention that was his stance with EVERY team?

And once again, trading takes trade partners. It isn't a "hey Loser Team, here are my expirings give me your STAR!!" and gets it done.

I realize that as long as I've been watching (since 04-05), Boston has never had the kind of financial capability to really go after top tier guys, but I think that that falls mainly on Ainge, because whenever he makes a big trade, like Antoine for Raef, or KG and Pierce for Humphries and Wallace, he always seems to saddle our payroll with at least one horrible, unmovable, contract, so how could we have ever had any flexibility?

OK... how is that relevant, in fact that's what I've been saying. Which pretty much contradict the premise with which you began your argument.

If you're going to trade Garnett and Pierce, why oh why would you ever want to take back Crash's contract?  Wouldn't it have been easier to amnesty Jason Terry and reconfigure the deal to give us another immediate expiring in addition to Humphries and draft picks?  I'll never forgive Danny for trading those guys.  Couldn't we have had similar flexibility by jettisoning Terry (no pun intended ) and allowing Pierce's contract to come off the books at the end of this last season, or no?  Garnett had taken a significant pay cut when he signed the extension in 2012, so it's not like we would have had a $20 million contract around our neck.  It's a serious question.  Again, I'm not trolling or anything like that.

Things simply don't work that way.

Amare Stoudemire getting the max on a crap team that had been the laughing stock of the league for 6-7 years is a hypothetical situation?  Um, wow

The hypothetical situation is you putting the Celtics on the same playing field and your assumptions of a players choice as if you know what each player is thinking. You don't.

I also understand how trading works, so try not to be so condescending.  Every situation is different, anyway.  Some clubs want players and picks in return as part of a deal, while a team at the bottom with one star might be more inclined to accept expiring contracts to help their rebuild by fielding the worst possible team - it's not a one size fits all policy, as you seem to believe.

That some teams do doesn't mean that all teams do or that all teams are willing to accept just that when their star is being moved, instead you're making the big jump in logic of a trade being all but done because we had expirings to send the Hornets.

By considerably less money, I mean guys like Ray Allen, Vince Carter, Elton Brand, Rashard Lewis, and Danny Granger who have signed on for sometimes minimum deals to play on a contender. Each of those guys has made an all-star team, and even in the case of the Celtics when Ray left, Garnett took a pretty substancial pay cut to try and give Danny more flexibility to bring the band back together, but Ray left. 

Ray left because he had a problem with management and apparently Rondo, and Doc to some extent. Nothing to do with Boston. In fact he LOVES the city of Boston, so there's not point to this.

That aside, those players are not and were not top free-agents, taking considerably less money does not apply.

What about David West when he initially signed with the Pacers. Luol Deng this year when he signed with the Heat. Steve Nash when he signed with the Lakers, Shawn Marion when he signed with Cleveland?  You also have to consider guys like Dirk and Tim Duncan who have signed on for less for the betterment of their respective teams.  Jason Kidd signed with the Knicks for $3.1 million, Chauncey Billups played for $6 million over 2 years for the Clippers, and just a year ago, Monta Ellis signed with the Mavs for $25.1 million over 3 years.  Richard Hamilton signed with Chicago for $15 million over 3 years,  Pau Gasol signed with the Bulls for $22 million over 3 years, Baron Davis when he signed with the Clippers and Knicks, and even Tracy McGrady played for the minimum in the final two years of his career.  How many more examples do you need?  Some of these guys were at the end, but the majority of them still had plenty left in the tank when they latched on to a contender.  All of these guys were All Stars.

Oh yeah, and why can't things work out that way, or is that just based on hypotheticals and your personal assumptions?  Cool.

I honestly don't know what you're arguing right now. Players sometimes give discounts to play in a contender... OK, what does that have to do with free-agents not wanting to come to Boston?

You have a mix there of players who really didn't give much of a discount at all, to players who give home-town discounts which happens everywhere particularly if the team is in a position to compete, players at the tail end of their careers who have other priorities than making money and are not top free-agents, etc.

So, with that said, fairly irrelevant to the discussion we're having.

[BballTim]

I hate to rain on your parade here, but if Gasol goes anywhere next season it's likely to be the Knicks because of Phil and the triangle offense, for which he is PERFECTLY suited.  I'm sure that consulting with Pau would help to facilitate such a move.  Sorry, guys, but he's not coming to Boston.  No one is.  Sigh.  Have we learned nothing from history haha?

I haven't, please illustrate me what I've missed in history, I'd appreciate specifics.

Thanks, it'll be great help.

please educate me as well

Pretty sure he is talking about free agency (correct me if I'm wrong) in which case what we've learned from history is that the Celtics have never really signed a big named free agent since free agency began. I mean, when James Posey is arguably your best addition via free agency that's not saying much.

Which is why I wanted specifics if possible... you know "Celtics have never really signed a big named free agent since free agency" is too generalized for me.

there'll never be any specific cases provided though.  C's have never had the cap money to make a run at a top FA.  that's the small fact that jams up their argument but that won't stop some people from clinging to that belief.

It's not just traditional free agency that we're talking about here, though, because there have also been a number of instances where we nearly traded for a guy, only for the deal to fall through in part because CP3, Kevin Love, and Dwight Howard (Danny tried to acquire him before he went to the Lakers iirc), wouldn't agree to an extension after their respective deals were up.  Don't ask me why no one ever wants to come here, btw, because I'm stumped. 

Sorry, but what you're saying is landing a bit on the "making crap up" side of things.

How am I making crap up?  It was reported at the time of each of those possible deals that those guys wouldn't guarantee that they would sign with Boston long-term.

  I don't recall any of Love/CP/Howard as close to done deals that fell apart because the player wouldn't agree to stay in Boston. The only deal that would fall into that category was KG, who came here a month or two later.

It wasn't the sole reason why those deals fell apart (thank god), but it did play a significant factor - you can't deny that.  Plus, didn't they already have an extension in place for KG when he came here, because that was signed relatively quickly, iirc, after his acquisition.

  Of course I can deny it, it never happened. Love was, by all accounts, amenable to come to Boston and sign a long term deal here. That was the reason Boston was so involved in the trade rumors. We were never that close to trading for CP, and were never seriously in the running for Howard. We didn't "nearly trade" for any of them. I don't recall any rumors to that effect in any one of those cases.

[BballTim]

  You don't always have to have a ton of money to attract guys to your club, and yet, even when the Fantastic Four were here, we were still not a primary destination.  All I've ever seen is guys willing to take sometimes substantial pay cuts to sign somewhere like New York, LA, Chicago, and Miami, but that is never the case here, no matter what stage our team is in.  Guys have said in the past that Boston is, "too cold," in addition to other bogus reasons for not coming here. 

   There were players who took substantial pay cuts to play in Boston in the KG era. Start with players like Posey, Daniels and Sheed. Also, one of Lee/Terry talked about how they turned down better offers to sign in Boston.

[hwangjini_1]

You're operating under the assumption that the Nets would have done the deal without being able to dump Wallace.  It appears that was a very crucial sticking point for Brooklyn.

while i too will never know what thoughts were swirling though the brooklyn's brains (if any), it does seem safe to say that they traded for KG and pierce since they were in an "go for it now" mode. wallace's contract and lack of talent was the price the celtics had to pay to get all those draft picks.

brooklyn gave up on the draft to get stars for the here and now. it did not work out for many reasons, but i can see their plan.

for the celtics, they were going no where with or without KG and pierce. wallace's poison pill contract makes no real difference since ainge planned to rebuild over the next 3-5 anyway. signing big name free agents was not in the cards for the duration of that contract. and ainge could/can stretch it out if absolutely necessary.

boston went all in on the draft to get assets for the future. it may not work out for many reasons, but i can see their plan.

given both sides' plans, the wallace trade makes sense for each side.

[Beat LA]

How about we just agree to disagree, okay?  Btw, you never answered my question - why couldn't the scenario that I outlined involving Pierce and Garnett work out, and why couldn't we amnesty Terry?  If he was the guy who turned down better offers to come here, I'm going to be ticked off lol

[Monkhouse]

How about we just agree to disagree, okay?  Btw, you never answered my question - why couldn't the scenario that I outlined involving Pierce and Garnett work out, and why couldn't we amnesty Terry?  If he was the guy who turned down better offers to come here, I'm going to be ticked off lol

Going to answer the second question...

Under CBA rules, you cannot amnesty a player like Terry or Bass. The only players we can amnesty is Bradley, and Rondo, and obviously amnestying those players are counterproductive.

[indeedproceed]

  You don't always have to have a ton of money to attract guys to your club, and yet, even when the Fantastic Four were here, we were still not a primary destination.  All I've ever seen is guys willing to take sometimes substantial pay cuts to sign somewhere like New York, LA, Chicago, and Miami, but that is never the case here, no matter what stage our team is in.  Guys have said in the past that Boston is, "too cold," in addition to other bogus reasons for not coming here. 

   There were players who took substantial pay cuts to play in Boston in the KG era. Start with players like Posey, Daniels and Sheed. Also, one of Lee/Terry talked about how they turned down better offers to sign in Boston.

Not to split hairs (but totally splitting hairs ), Posey took a calculated risk because his value around the league was low at the time. When he showed he can still give awesome hugs and hit the occasional 3pter he might as well have had a jet pack on his back to get out of town.

Sheed as well, maybe a little paycut, but nothing approaching anywhere near the level Ray Allen took to play with Miami over a much more substantial offer from Boston.

There have been some undeniable coupes (at the time, which is what matters) during Boston's title run and almost title, as well as after, but they weren't all wins, and I don't think we could extrapolate those victories into proof positive of anything, anymore than the Celtics lack of ever landing a 'big fish' in free agency because they have never tried is proof positive that they cannot. The two arguments fall victim to the same flaws.

[SHAQATTACK]

A lot of luck 

[indeedproceed]

A lot of luck 

I don't think we need luck. Drugs, that's what we need. Drugs and barbecue. With enough poppers, screamers, laughers, and hallucinogens, then follow that with slow cooked smoked meat, we just MIGHT convince the big Eruro that this is actually Memphis.

[Monkhouse]

A lot of luck 

I don't think we need luck. Drugs, that's what we need. Drugs and barbecue. With enough poppers, screamers, laughers, and hallucinogens, then follow that with slow cooked smoked meat, we just MIGHT convince the big Eruro that this is actually Memphis.

Well we better start buying some

[Beat LA]

How about we just agree to disagree, okay?  Btw, you never answered my question - why couldn't the scenario that I outlined involving Pierce and Garnett work out, and why couldn't we amnesty Terry?  If he was the guy who turned down better offers to come here, I'm going to be ticked off lol

Going to answer the second question...

Under CBA rules, you cannot amnesty a player like Terry or Bass. The only players we can amnesty is Bradley, and Rondo, and obviously amnestying those players are counterproductive.

Is there a specific reason as to why we couldn't have amnestied Terry, or is it just a general rule?  Sorry, I'm not familiar with all the idiosyncrasies associated with NBA contracts

[Beat LA]

  You don't always have to have a ton of money to attract guys to your club, and yet, even when the Fantastic Four were here, we were still not a primary destination.  All I've ever seen is guys willing to take sometimes substantial pay cuts to sign somewhere like New York, LA, Chicago, and Miami, but that is never the case here, no matter what stage our team is in.  Guys have said in the past that Boston is, "too cold," in addition to other bogus reasons for not coming here. 

   There were players who took substantial pay cuts to play in Boston in the KG era. Start with players like Posey, Daniels and Sheed. Also, one of Lee/Terry talked about how they turned down better offers to sign in Boston.

Not to split hairs (but totally splitting hairs ), Posey took a calculated risk because his value around the league was low at the time. When he showed he can still give awesome hugs and hit the occasional 3pter he might as well have had a jet pack on his back to get out of town.

Sheed as well, maybe a little paycut, but nothing approaching anywhere near the level Ray Allen took to play with Miami over a much more substantial offer from Boston.

There have been some undeniable coupes (at the time, which is what matters) during Boston's title run and almost title, as well as after, but they weren't all wins, and I don't think we could extrapolate those victories into proof positive of anything, anymore than the Celtics lack of ever landing a 'big fish' in free agency because they have never tried is proof positive that they cannot. The two arguments fall victim to the same flaws.

Plus, how many of those top-tier in-their-prime guys leave their teams anyway?  It's pretty rare, although, obviously, each situation is different.  Tim Duncan almost left for the Magic, but that's about it in terms of franchise guys from 1996 onward.  Dirk, Pierce, and Kobe never left, and Garnett had to be convinced to come here.  The whole Miami Heat phenomena was to free agency what the KG and Ray Allen deals were to trades - it was an extremely rare, once in a generation move that occurred only when all of the stars perfectly aligned.  Free agency isn't like playing a video game, as much as we'd all like it to be at times, haha, because the guys who are the best of the best are hardly moved, especially in their respective primes, and, unfortunately, Boston has just never been a marquee destination for those types of players.  Perhaps it's all driven by marketing and other business potential crap, which is another reason why guys want to play in New York, Chicago, LA, and now Miami - the exposure, the endorsements, etc.  Guys like Paul Pierce, Joe Johnson, and Michael Redd are/were some of the best players of their generation, and yet they have pretty much always flown under the radar because they're not in commercials like Wade, Kobe, Lebron, Jordan, or Shaq.  The first time I ever saw an endorsement for Paul Pierce it wasn't even a commercial - it was an ad in a magazine for Backyard Basketball or something lol.  Now, is that because of Boston, Milwaukee, and Atlanta?  I honestly don't know, but it's clearly not the same as playing for LA, New York, or Chicago.  Boston is the classic small market team, quite honestly, in the NBA, which is hilarious when you consider the history of the franchise.

[BballTim]

  You don't always have to have a ton of money to attract guys to your club, and yet, even when the Fantastic Four were here, we were still not a primary destination.  All I've ever seen is guys willing to take sometimes substantial pay cuts to sign somewhere like New York, LA, Chicago, and Miami, but that is never the case here, no matter what stage our team is in.  Guys have said in the past that Boston is, "too cold," in addition to other bogus reasons for not coming here. 

   There were players who took substantial pay cuts to play in Boston in the KG era. Start with players like Posey, Daniels and Sheed. Also, one of Lee/Terry talked about how they turned down better offers to sign in Boston.

Not to split hairs (but totally splitting hairs ), Posey took a calculated risk because his value around the league was low at the time. When he showed he can still give awesome hugs and hit the occasional 3pter he might as well have had a jet pack on his back to get out of town.

Sheed as well, maybe a little paycut, but nothing approaching anywhere near the level Ray Allen took to play with Miami over a much more substantial offer from Boston.

There have been some undeniable coupes (at the time, which is what matters) during Boston's title run and almost title, as well as after, but they weren't all wins, and I don't think we could extrapolate those victories into proof positive of anything, anymore than the Celtics lack of ever landing a 'big fish' in free agency because they have never tried is proof positive that they cannot. The two arguments fall victim to the same flaws.

  You are splitting hairs, you probably don't have any way of showing (or knowing) how much Posey could have gotten elsewhere and I'm not trying to extrapolate my post into anything. He's been claiming that players take pay cuts to go to other teams and not to Boston, I'm pointing out that's not really the case.