What would it take for us to acquire Marc Gasol?

[BudweiserCeltic]

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 know about Kevin Love who seems to have a *wink* *wink* deal with Cleveland and pretty much the sole reason being LeBron James, not the team (and he wasn't guaranteeing an extension anywhere else either, in fact he was adamant that he was going to hit free-agency).

But focusing on Chris Paul and Dwight Howard as not "guaranteeing they would sign in Boston long-term" is a complete non-factor considering that they said the same about other teams as well. In fact, isn't it hilarious that Dwight actually went to this awesome franchise known as the L.A. Lakers only to not extend with them and go to Houston instead the next free-agency?

As for Chris Paul he ended up resigning with the Clippers, but he didn't guaranteed anything there as well.

So bringing this up as "evidence" is complete nonsense, particularly with the seeming allusion you want to parallel as it being a consequence of a dislike for Boston or such.

Yeah, it was, and I loved every moment of it.  Serves them right, as far as I'm concerned

As for the rest, like Chris Paul, location matters to these guys, as many of them live there in the offseason.  Everyone seems to love LA, and, coupled with playing with Blake Griffin, the opportunity to wrestle LA from the Lakers and put the Clippers on the map seemed to appeal to CP3 more than Boston, which, honestly, is fine by me

Love will resign with Cleveland next year, and even if he had hit free agency, Boston would never have even been on his list of possible destinations.  I don't see how you think it's, "complete nonsense," when the Celtics have NEVER signed a big name free agent, but you don't have to take my word for it .  Go ask Bob Ryan.  Go ask Jackie Macmullan, even though she seems to hate Rondo lol.  They'll both tell you the same thing - Boston is just not, and has never been, an attractive destination for free agents.  I'm sorry if that dampens the mood around here, but I thought that this was accepted as common knowledge or fact throughout the fan-base.

Sorry, but you're a lost cause here. I don't know if it's that you don't understand how the CBA works or you're having trouble understanding that we had no means to sign a big free-agent, but you keep repeating things that are not evidence and completely inconsequential.

Find me the last time the Celtics had cap room and what players they targeted. You do that much, and we can go from there. But until then, this whole "Celtics have NEVER signed a big name free agent" argument is completely without merit.

Basically your argument boils down to "See, the Celtics in 2014 didn't sign LeBron James despite not having cap space to do so. This absolutely means that the Celtics can't sign big name free-agents" and then apply that reasoning throughout the years.

You mad bro?

Not mad, but it gets tiring when things get explained as impossibilities just to have have them ignored and repeated once again.

Sigh.  No, it doesn't - you've completely missed the point here.  I may not be completely familiar with all of the aspects of the new cba, but I do understand how cap space works, so thank you for insulting me (sarcasm).

Well we're not talking about the new CBA, we're talking about history here. Nothing new about it. But if you understood how cap space works you could find me a situation in which the Celtics have had any to offer big free-agents. I'll stay here around waiting.

What you seem unable to comprehend is that, even if we were over the cap when we could have acquired guys like CP3, Love, and Howard, who were all expirings, the free agents' team, by virtue of the cba, can offer substantially more money to one of their own free agents if that guy decides to stay there, as opposed to a team who would be pursuing said players from the outside, so to speak, and if we can't even get guys that way, how are we to sign free agents if, or when, we actually do have cap space?

I understood completely, what you seemed unable to comprehend, as I already explained on my first reply, was that that stance of not committing "long term" was not a Boston as a destination thing, but a stance they had with every destination. So taking that situation as an example of players not wanting to play in Boston is a complete non-factor... particularly when you consider that the writing was on the wall that the Celtics may start the rebuilding process soon having an aging Pierce, Garnett, Allen on their roster (and I believe had pending free-agency as well).

To say nothing about the complications for an agreement between the teams involved in the trade (sometimes 3+ team deals).

I also don't know why you're getting so worked up over this, because I'm not trying to start a fight with anyone (I'm not a troll), and there's no need for your patronizing tone, either.  It's absolutely uncalled for.  I'm done here.

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.

[loco_91]

From what I've heard, Gasol is certainly going to re-sign with the Griz. Knowing that, Griz will not trade him, unless they are stupid.

[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 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. 

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. 

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.

[Beat LA]

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.

The KG deal was rejected the first time because KG didn't think he and Pierce could do serious damage in the eastern conference, and (I've heard here and elsewhere) because he didn't want to play with Wally Szczerbiak. It had nothing to do with Boston being Boston, per say.

Given the options, I'm not sure that Boston is a great free agency landing spot, but I do think it has some advantages over other, similarly situated cities -- namely the fanbase, the front office, and the ownership.

Okay, yeah, I get the Wally thing, but, correct me if I'm wrong, I thought that the first time a deal was discussed between Minnesota and Boston for KG was after the draft, during which we had traded for Ray Allen.

Also, I agree with your last paragraph.  All I'm saying is why wouldn't someone want to come to a great sports city like Boston?  If you bring home a title, you'll virtually be god around New England.  People love their sports here, so again I say, why not? 

[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.

[D.o.s.]

The team isn't good enough to convince any player to stay with us long term. The only players who are available are rentals with their contracts close to expiring because otherwise why would they be available? The only option for the Celtics now is to deal for a guy signed long term that is young but available due to significant question marks (Gallinari, Sanders, those types). Or, they wait until they have cap space and sign a guy who is not one of the top free agents to an overpay deal.

There just aren't a lot of good options for the Celtics in the near future which is why the draft is their best bet. There is no magical Garnett trade out there and the current team doesn't even have a Paul Pierce in his prime yet.

They have Rondo and I'm not tanking this year.

Tanking is the square to having a bad team's rectangle.

[puskas54_10]

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.

Until Kobe is there a big yes.

[slamtheking]

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.

TP for fighting the good fight Bud.  some people get it.  others do not.  I'll go around once, maybe twice with someone on this point asking for examples and when none are provided, I don't bother continuing the discussion.

I get BL's comment about being able to go over the cap to resign players but to me it's irrelevant to the free agency commentary.  so many other factors in play when acquiring a player via trade as opposed to signing one outright in free agency.  not that Boston the city represents a problem for acquiring players which also pokes holes in the "can't sign a FA" theory.

also never hear any issues with the other Boston teams signing FAs.  In fact, the other franchises tend to do quite well in that regard -- further damaging the idea that Boston as a city has problems attracting FAs.

[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.

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. 

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?  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.

[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.

TP for fighting the good fight Bud.  some people get it.  others do not.  I'll go around once, maybe twice with someone on this point asking for examples and when none are provided, I don't bother continuing the discussion.

I get BL's comment about being able to go over the cap to resign players but to me it's irrelevant to the free agency commentary.  so many other factors in play when acquiring a player via trade as opposed to signing one outright in free agency.  not that Boston the city represents a problem for acquiring players which also pokes holes in the "can't sign a FA" theory.

also never hear any issues with the other Boston teams signing FAs.  In fact, the other franchises tend to do quite well in that regard -- further damaging the idea that Boston as a city has problems attracting FAs.

Right, so then why are the Celtics left out in the cold?

[indeedproceed]

Number one thing we could do to attract Marc Gasol is move the franchise to Memphis. That would be the only way he comes here.

[Monkhouse]

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.

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. 

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?  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.

The Celtics took back Humphries/Wallace/Bogans, because it resulted in over 3 draft picks, and at least 3-5 second rounders... A few years ago, Howard/CP3 were traded for great prospects/players, and 1-2 picks. Picks back then were valuable, and they still are. And every GM has been like that... Ainge just has a knack for taking on a bad contract to get something in return...

Honestly if the Celtics had acquired a top 3 pick... I don't see how the Wolves would've refused giving us Kevin Love for a top 3 pick... They wouldn't have waited for LBJ to go back home. A boatload of picks, plus a top 3 pick would've jump started their rebuild immediately.

Negotiations aren't always going to be lopsided in our favor.

And no... Even if Pierce came off the books, and Terry was amnestied, (which under CBA rules, you cannot amnesty Wallace, Bass, or Terry,) we would have around 6-8 million left in cap space... Garnett would also still be on our books, and his contract couldn't be re-negotiated.

There was a similar thread about us possibly acquiring Smith/Jefferson when they were UFA. But the truth of the matter was, at the time if we managed to move a lot of our terrible contracts, we would only be able to take one at around 11-12 million, and unless Smith took a huge discount, would only be had for the MLE.

So while I like your argument, the Celtics didn't have the ability to get immediate cap space. Which is why Ainge moved Pierce/KG/Terry for picks, and cap expiring contracts. Wallace is a horrible contract, but he was the main catalyst in terms of fitting the trade proposal contract wise.

So technically, we haven't had the cap space to reel in any good FA. We will do so next year, so I hope Marc Gasol, is brought here.

My thinking is that the arrival of a great Center like Gasol could propel us to the 2nd round, and to possibly bring in a third superstar/Allstar.

[Monkhouse]

Number one thing we could do to attract Marc Gasol is move the franchise to Memphis. That would be the only way he comes here.

Gasol said he would love to re-sign with Memphis, but....

Memphis has come out and said depending on how they do this year, will determine whether or not they blow it up. They re-signed Z-Bo, but for a player like him who can still average at least 14/8, is still a good steal for under 12 million. He would fit perfectly on a team needing a PF that can rebound, and score points in the paint.

If they don't do as well, why would they want to sign Gasol to the max? I consider Gasol a max under the right conditions, and the Grizzlies are in similar waters as the Celtics Big 3 once was. If they don't contend or come close to being a contender this year, I just don't see them trying to run with Gasol/Z-Bo. Their window is getting shorter and shorter by the year. And while Gasol has a great game that can age well, he'll be looking to win a ring sooner or later.

[indeedproceed]

Number one thing we could do to attract Marc Gasol is move the franchise to Memphis. That would be the only way he comes here.

Gasol said he would love to re-sign with Memphis, but....

Memphis has come out and said depending on how they do this year, will determine whether or not they blow it up. They re-signed Z-Bo, but for a player like him who can still average at least 14/8, is still a good steal for under 12 million. He would fit perfectly on a team needing a PF that can rebound, and score points in the paint.

If they don't do as well, why would they want to sign Gasol to the max? I consider Gasol a max under the right conditions, and the Grizzlies are in similar waters as the Celtics Big 3 once was. If they don't contend or come close to being a contender this year, I just don't see them trying to run with Gasol/Z-Bo. Their window is getting shorter and shorter by the year. And while Gasol has a great game that can age well, he'll be looking to win a ring sooner or later.

I think you're underselling how much Marc Gasol loves Memphis. He literally grew up there. He calls it his hometown. I think maybe the only bigger red herring to chase in Free Agency is LaMarcus Aldridge.

[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.