Author Topic: A classic read: "Danny is a snake"  (Read 26261 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: A classic read: "Danny is a snake"
« Reply #60 on: July 27, 2015, 06:02:19 PM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
Anyway, Antoine was mostly wrong in his assessment of Danny, but he was right that trading him for Raef LaFrentz was a huge miscalculation.  When you trade your franchise star -- even a flawed one -- you hope to get a building block, rather than somebody where you have to sacrifice a lottery pick just to get rid of their contract.
A healthy Raef LaFrenz is pretty darn good. The problem was he wasn't healthy.

Oh please, he was crap.

Re: A classic read: "Danny is a snake"
« Reply #61 on: July 27, 2015, 06:07:05 PM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
It was a good trade in the long-run. Antoine was fool's gold - he put up decent numbers, but in the most inefficient manner, and he got paid a ton of money. Raef was injury-prone, yes, but he did put up decent #'s (and was, prior to the trade, one of the best guys against Shaq), and his contract was key in getting KG. So...already, huge plus. Welsch netted us a 1st, which we used to get Rondo. I mean, honestly, it was addition by subtraction. Walker was a detriment to the team. It was only when he got to Miami, when he had no option but to be a sub, that he finally learned how to be a team guy. Too bad, b/c had he learned that earlier (this is a good argument against tanking, btw - Walker picked up some terrible habits in his first 2 seasons), he had enough talent that he could have been a legit perennial all star.

I generally don't like to tear posts apart so I hope this doesn't come off too harsh, but there are several things wrong here:

- First, the Raef contract was awful. If Danny just wanted Antoine off the team, he should have dumped him for an expiring (or waited for him to expire at the end of the season). Raef's contract led to Ratliff's which led to getting KG, but none of that was really necessary and we actually had to give up the 7th pick in '06 to get Ratliff (and Telfair).

Exactly, and the fact that Danny took on Gerald Wallace's awful contract shows that he really learned nothing from the Toine-Raef trade, imo.  Interestingly, if you google Antoine Walker trade 2003, there is another team who consistently shows up - the Knicks.  Apparently, there were proposals for a Sprewell-Walker swap (with perhaps a first round pick also included), whose contracts matched identically, so here's my question - as we know that McHale ultimately traded for Sprewell, largely by using the $11.5 million expiring contract of Terrell Brandon, why couldn't we have facilitated a 3-team trade where Minnesota gets Spree, the Knicks get Toine, and we get the said financial relief provided by Brandon's deal, plus a pick or two from the Knicks?  Brandon didn't even play after 2002, so he wouldn't have taken a roster spot, and if we needed another $2 million to make the transaction, I'm sure that we could have gotten New York or Minnesota to fork up dat cash, lol ;D. I mean, we're talking about the James Dolan-led Knicks, here, haha ;D. Those picks would have been gold.
i take this as your disapproval of the trade between the celtics and brooklyn. you must be hosting a rather small party if you believe this. not only did wallace's contract not prevent any move of significance by the celtics, ainge turned the third year of wallace into one year of lee.

oh...or maybe you were complimenting ainge. if so, my mistake.

Well, if Ainge had drafted better, we never would have been in that position in the first place, imo, and yes, it was the wrong thing to do, but again, that's only my view.  I just can't see Red ever doing something like that - he was far too loyal.

As for Wallace ultimately netting us Lee - woo, lol ::) ;D.

Criticizing the trade that brought Wallace here is bold. You're aware that other elements were involved, correct? That deal is likely to go down as one of the great heists in NBA history, when all is said and done.

Yes, I'm aware of the draft picks, but at the same time, we're now headed into year 3 of the rebuild, and I have yet to see any kind of vision or plan in place other than waiting for some team to stupidly make their superstar(s) available.  What we're in right now is a holding pattern, and I'd be more hopeful about said draft selections if Danny had a good-to-great track record when it comes to drafting, which he does not.  Besides, what if those picks never materialize into anything but mid first rounders?  How would you feel at that point?

I'd feel good. It'd still be excellent value for what they traded away. But I sincerely doubt they'll be mid-tier picks. The Nets are not making the playoffs next year, and that's just the beginning of the road. Put more bluntly, Wallace's contract had had zero effect on the Cs, other than to help net them a sick ransom. So you're just dead wrong.

As for your assessment of Ainge's draft record, I really don't think you have the first clue what you're talking about. Ainge has had misses, yes. But he's also had some pretty serious hits, and he's never drafted higher that 6th, I believe -- he had the 5th pick in 2007 but traded it for Ray Allen. Outside of RC Buford (golden God), considering where he's had his picks he looks pretty strong against virtually any GM, and is far better than many.

Where do you think they'll end up for next year, then?  13 or so?  I just think that it's impossible to get equal value for legends, no matter how old they are, and Wallace's contract just seemed like a weight, quite honestly, but what am I dead wrong about, again?

Also, I think that we're going to save ourselves a lot of time and effort if we just agree to disagree about his drafting record, lol ;D, as I've well documented my position on this in the past in numerous threads.  Not necessarily with you, but I just thought that I'd point that out.  If you read over the stuff I'm pretty sure that you'd draw the same conclusion about me as most people do on here - I'm crazy ::), haha ;D. No big deal.  Don't get me wrong, I hope that it all works out, but I'm also a pessimist, so I'm not exactly looking forward to the prospect of seeing us rely on more ping pong balls, lol ;D. Ugh.

You're dead wrong in attaching any negative significance to Wallace's presence and contract. It was a) essential for the deal to be made (like Bogans), and b) the price of doing business. A trade is not one-sided. For The Celtics to get what they wanted (the mountain of picks) they had to take something The Nets wanted to give up. That was Gerald Wallace and his large contract. As The Celtics were going all in on rebuilding eeking out the cap space to sign a few veterans was irrelevant. The willingness to take on Wallace's contract (who btw was nothing but a positive influence on the youth movement) is what facilitated that deal in both salary matching and in motivation from The Nets (obviously they desired PP and KG as a main motivation, players The Celtics could not give up without taking back salary --- in the form of GW).

Kill the deal as a whole if you want but to isolate Gerald Wallace and make that the key element or principal pillar of that deal is either misguided or disingenuous.

I know how trades work, lol - geez ::), but I don't agree that we were going all in on the rebuild at that time.  That only finally happened last year after Rondo and Green were dealt.  Besides, did Wallace really do anything of significance while he was here, aside from criticizing his teammates in spite of the fact that he couldn't even get on the court himself ::)?

Re: A classic read: "Danny is a snake"
« Reply #62 on: July 27, 2015, 06:53:24 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58470
  • Tommy Points: -25640
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
Anyway, Antoine was mostly wrong in his assessment of Danny, but he was right that trading him for Raef LaFrentz was a huge miscalculation.  When you trade your franchise star -- even a flawed one -- you hope to get a building block, rather than somebody where you have to sacrifice a lottery pick just to get rid of their contract.
A healthy Raef LaFrenz is pretty darn good. The problem was he wasn't healthy.

Right. He was injured before the trade, was still injured at the time of the trade, and never really recovered to close the player he could have been.

I understand gambling on injuries. I don't understand gambling on injured players with long-term big money contracts.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: A classic read: "Danny is a snake"
« Reply #63 on: July 27, 2015, 07:28:34 PM »

Offline GratefulCs

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3181
  • Tommy Points: 496
  • Salmon and Mashed Potatoes
It was a good trade in the long-run. Antoine was fool's gold - he put up decent numbers, but in the most inefficient manner, and he got paid a ton of money. Raef was injury-prone, yes, but he did put up decent #'s (and was, prior to the trade, one of the best guys against Shaq), and his contract was key in getting KG. So...already, huge plus. Welsch netted us a 1st, which we used to get Rondo. I mean, honestly, it was addition by subtraction. Walker was a detriment to the team. It was only when he got to Miami, when he had no option but to be a sub, that he finally learned how to be a team guy. Too bad, b/c had he learned that earlier (this is a good argument against tanking, btw - Walker picked up some terrible habits in his first 2 seasons), he had enough talent that he could have been a legit perennial all star.

I generally don't like to tear posts apart so I hope this doesn't come off too harsh, but there are several things wrong here:

- First, the Raef contract was awful. If Danny just wanted Antoine off the team, he should have dumped him for an expiring (or waited for him to expire at the end of the season). Raef's contract led to Ratliff's which led to getting KG, but none of that was really necessary and we actually had to give up the 7th pick in '06 to get Ratliff (and Telfair).

Exactly, and the fact that Danny took on Gerald Wallace's awful contract shows that he really learned nothing from the Toine-Raef trade, imo.  Interestingly, if you google Antoine Walker trade 2003, there is another team who consistently shows up - the Knicks.  Apparently, there were proposals for a Sprewell-Walker swap (with perhaps a first round pick also included), whose contracts matched identically, so here's my question - as we know that McHale ultimately traded for Sprewell, largely by using the $11.5 million expiring contract of Terrell Brandon, why couldn't we have facilitated a 3-team trade where Minnesota gets Spree, the Knicks get Toine, and we get the said financial relief provided by Brandon's deal, plus a pick or two from the Knicks?  Brandon didn't even play after 2002, so he wouldn't have taken a roster spot, and if we needed another $2 million to make the transaction, I'm sure that we could have gotten New York or Minnesota to fork up dat cash, lol ;D. I mean, we're talking about the James Dolan-led Knicks, here, haha ;D. Those picks would have been gold.
i take this as your disapproval of the trade between the celtics and brooklyn. you must be hosting a rather small party if you believe this. not only did wallace's contract not prevent any move of significance by the celtics, ainge turned the third year of wallace into one year of lee.

oh...or maybe you were complimenting ainge. if so, my mistake.

Well, if Ainge had drafted better, we never would have been in that position in the first place, imo, and yes, it was the wrong thing to do, but again, that's only my view.  I just can't see Red ever doing something like that - he was far too loyal.

As for Wallace ultimately netting us Lee - woo, lol ::) ;D.

Criticizing the trade that brought Wallace here is bold. You're aware that other elements were involved, correct? That deal is likely to go down as one of the great heists in NBA history, when all is said and done.

Yes, I'm aware of the draft picks, but at the same time, we're now headed into year 3 of the rebuild, and I have yet to see any kind of vision or plan in place other than waiting for some team to stupidly make their superstar(s) available.  What we're in right now is a holding pattern, and I'd be more hopeful about said draft selections if Danny had a good-to-great track record when it comes to drafting, which he does not.  Besides, what if those picks never materialize into anything but mid first rounders?  How would you feel at that point?

I'd feel good. It'd still be excellent value for what they traded away. But I sincerely doubt they'll be mid-tier picks. The Nets are not making the playoffs next year, and that's just the beginning of the road. Put more bluntly, Wallace's contract had had zero effect on the Cs, other than to help net them a sick ransom. So you're just dead wrong.

As for your assessment of Ainge's draft record, I really don't think you have the first clue what you're talking about. Ainge has had misses, yes. But he's also had some pretty serious hits, and he's never drafted higher that 6th, I believe -- he had the 5th pick in 2007 but traded it for Ray Allen. Outside of RC Buford (golden God), considering where he's had his picks he looks pretty strong against virtually any GM, and is far better than many.

Where do you think they'll end up for next year, then?  13 or so?  I just think that it's impossible to get equal value for legends, no matter how old they are, and Wallace's contract just seemed like a weight, quite honestly, but what am I dead wrong about, again?

Also, I think that we're going to save ourselves a lot of time and effort if we just agree to disagree about his drafting record, lol ;D, as I've well documented my position on this in the past in numerous threads.  Not necessarily with you, but I just thought that I'd point that out.  If you read over the stuff I'm pretty sure that you'd draw the same conclusion about me as most people do on here - I'm crazy ::), haha ;D. No big deal.  Don't get me wrong, I hope that it all works out, but I'm also a pessimist, so I'm not exactly looking forward to the prospect of seeing us rely on more ping pong balls, lol ;D. Ugh.

You're dead wrong in attaching any negative significance to Wallace's presence and contract. It was a) essential for the deal to be made (like Bogans), and b) the price of doing business. A trade is not one-sided. For The Celtics to get what they wanted (the mountain of picks) they had to take something The Nets wanted to give up. That was Gerald Wallace and his large contract. As The Celtics were going all in on rebuilding eeking out the cap space to sign a few veterans was irrelevant. The willingness to take on Wallace's contract (who btw was nothing but a positive influence on the youth movement) is what facilitated that deal in both salary matching and in motivation from The Nets (obviously they desired PP and KG as a main motivation, players The Celtics could not give up without taking back salary --- in the form of GW).

Kill the deal as a whole if you want but to isolate Gerald Wallace and make that the key element or principal pillar of that deal is either misguided or disingenuous.

I know how trades work, lol - geez ::), but I don't agree that we were going all in on the rebuild at that time.  That only finally happened last year after Rondo and Green were dealt.  Besides, did Wallace really do anything of significance while he was here, aside from criticizing his teammates in spite of the fact that he couldn't even get on the court himself ::)?
h8rs gon h8



P.s. I think the eye roll emojii should be taken off as an option. What good can come of it other than annoying and offending other posters?
I trust Danny Ainge

Re: A classic read: "Danny is a snake"
« Reply #64 on: July 27, 2015, 08:09:21 PM »

Offline BitterJim

  • NGT
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8902
  • Tommy Points: 1212
It was a good trade in the long-run. Antoine was fool's gold - he put up decent numbers, but in the most inefficient manner, and he got paid a ton of money. Raef was injury-prone, yes, but he did put up decent #'s (and was, prior to the trade, one of the best guys against Shaq), and his contract was key in getting KG. So...already, huge plus. Welsch netted us a 1st, which we used to get Rondo. I mean, honestly, it was addition by subtraction. Walker was a detriment to the team. It was only when he got to Miami, when he had no option but to be a sub, that he finally learned how to be a team guy. Too bad, b/c had he learned that earlier (this is a good argument against tanking, btw - Walker picked up some terrible habits in his first 2 seasons), he had enough talent that he could have been a legit perennial all star.

I generally don't like to tear posts apart so I hope this doesn't come off too harsh, but there are several things wrong here:

- First, the Raef contract was awful. If Danny just wanted Antoine off the team, he should have dumped him for an expiring (or waited for him to expire at the end of the season). Raef's contract led to Ratliff's which led to getting KG, but none of that was really necessary and we actually had to give up the 7th pick in '06 to get Ratliff (and Telfair).

Exactly, and the fact that Danny took on Gerald Wallace's awful contract shows that he really learned nothing from the Toine-Raef trade, imo.  Interestingly, if you google Antoine Walker trade 2003, there is another team who consistently shows up - the Knicks.  Apparently, there were proposals for a Sprewell-Walker swap (with perhaps a first round pick also included), whose contracts matched identically, so here's my question - as we know that McHale ultimately traded for Sprewell, largely by using the $11.5 million expiring contract of Terrell Brandon, why couldn't we have facilitated a 3-team trade where Minnesota gets Spree, the Knicks get Toine, and we get the said financial relief provided by Brandon's deal, plus a pick or two from the Knicks?  Brandon didn't even play after 2002, so he wouldn't have taken a roster spot, and if we needed another $2 million to make the transaction, I'm sure that we could have gotten New York or Minnesota to fork up dat cash, lol ;D. I mean, we're talking about the James Dolan-led Knicks, here, haha ;D. Those picks would have been gold.
i take this as your disapproval of the trade between the celtics and brooklyn. you must be hosting a rather small party if you believe this. not only did wallace's contract not prevent any move of significance by the celtics, ainge turned the third year of wallace into one year of lee.

oh...or maybe you were complimenting ainge. if so, my mistake.

Well, if Ainge had drafted better, we never would have been in that position in the first place, imo, and yes, it was the wrong thing to do, but again, that's only my view.  I just can't see Red ever doing something like that - he was far too loyal.

As for Wallace ultimately netting us Lee - woo, lol ::) ;D.

Criticizing the trade that brought Wallace here is bold. You're aware that other elements were involved, correct? That deal is likely to go down as one of the great heists in NBA history, when all is said and done.

Yes, I'm aware of the draft picks, but at the same time, we're now headed into year 3 of the rebuild, and I have yet to see any kind of vision or plan in place other than waiting for some team to stupidly make their superstar(s) available.  What we're in right now is a holding pattern, and I'd be more hopeful about said draft selections if Danny had a good-to-great track record when it comes to drafting, which he does not.  Besides, what if those picks never materialize into anything but mid first rounders?  How would you feel at that point?

I'd feel good. It'd still be excellent value for what they traded away. But I sincerely doubt they'll be mid-tier picks. The Nets are not making the playoffs next year, and that's just the beginning of the road. Put more bluntly, Wallace's contract had had zero effect on the Cs, other than to help net them a sick ransom. So you're just dead wrong.

As for your assessment of Ainge's draft record, I really don't think you have the first clue what you're talking about. Ainge has had misses, yes. But he's also had some pretty serious hits, and he's never drafted higher that 6th, I believe -- he had the 5th pick in 2007 but traded it for Ray Allen. Outside of RC Buford (golden God), considering where he's had his picks he looks pretty strong against virtually any GM, and is far better than many.

Where do you think they'll end up for next year, then?  13 or so?  I just think that it's impossible to get equal value for legends, no matter how old they are, and Wallace's contract just seemed like a weight, quite honestly, but what am I dead wrong about, again?

Also, I think that we're going to save ourselves a lot of time and effort if we just agree to disagree about his drafting record, lol ;D, as I've well documented my position on this in the past in numerous threads.  Not necessarily with you, but I just thought that I'd point that out.  If you read over the stuff I'm pretty sure that you'd draw the same conclusion about me as most people do on here - I'm crazy ::), haha ;D. No big deal.  Don't get me wrong, I hope that it all works out, but I'm also a pessimist, so I'm not exactly looking forward to the prospect of seeing us rely on more ping pong balls, lol ;D. Ugh.

You're dead wrong in attaching any negative significance to Wallace's presence and contract. It was a) essential for the deal to be made (like Bogans), and b) the price of doing business. A trade is not one-sided. For The Celtics to get what they wanted (the mountain of picks) they had to take something The Nets wanted to give up. That was Gerald Wallace and his large contract. As The Celtics were going all in on rebuilding eeking out the cap space to sign a few veterans was irrelevant. The willingness to take on Wallace's contract (who btw was nothing but a positive influence on the youth movement) is what facilitated that deal in both salary matching and in motivation from The Nets (obviously they desired PP and KG as a main motivation, players The Celtics could not give up without taking back salary --- in the form of GW).

Kill the deal as a whole if you want but to isolate Gerald Wallace and make that the key element or principal pillar of that deal is either misguided or disingenuous.

I know how trades work, lol - geez ::), but I don't agree that we were going all in on the rebuild at that time.  That only finally happened last year after Rondo and Green were dealt.  Besides, did Wallace really do anything of significance while he was here, aside from criticizing his teammates in spite of the fact that he couldn't even get on the court himself ::)?

https://youtu.be/DAZdxOmoZRE

Plus he was, by all acounts, a good role model for younger players (and would likely have gotten the Keith Bogan treatment if he wasn't), and I think he maybe scored a point at some point (although I doubt it)
I'm bitter.

Re: A classic read: "Danny is a snake"
« Reply #65 on: July 27, 2015, 08:15:02 PM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
Anyway, Antoine was mostly wrong in his assessment of Danny, but he was right that trading him for Raef LaFrentz was a huge miscalculation.  When you trade your franchise star -- even a flawed one -- you hope to get a building block, rather than somebody where you have to sacrifice a lottery pick just to get rid of their contract.
A healthy Raef LaFrenz is pretty darn good. The problem was he wasn't healthy.

Right. He was injured before the trade, was still injured at the time of the trade, and never really recovered to close the player he could have been.

I understand gambling on injuries. I don't understand gambling on injured players with long-term big money contracts.

TP.

Re: A classic read: "Danny is a snake"
« Reply #66 on: July 27, 2015, 08:17:30 PM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
It was a good trade in the long-run. Antoine was fool's gold - he put up decent numbers, but in the most inefficient manner, and he got paid a ton of money. Raef was injury-prone, yes, but he did put up decent #'s (and was, prior to the trade, one of the best guys against Shaq), and his contract was key in getting KG. So...already, huge plus. Welsch netted us a 1st, which we used to get Rondo. I mean, honestly, it was addition by subtraction. Walker was a detriment to the team. It was only when he got to Miami, when he had no option but to be a sub, that he finally learned how to be a team guy. Too bad, b/c had he learned that earlier (this is a good argument against tanking, btw - Walker picked up some terrible habits in his first 2 seasons), he had enough talent that he could have been a legit perennial all star.

I generally don't like to tear posts apart so I hope this doesn't come off too harsh, but there are several things wrong here:

- First, the Raef contract was awful. If Danny just wanted Antoine off the team, he should have dumped him for an expiring (or waited for him to expire at the end of the season). Raef's contract led to Ratliff's which led to getting KG, but none of that was really necessary and we actually had to give up the 7th pick in '06 to get Ratliff (and Telfair).

Exactly, and the fact that Danny took on Gerald Wallace's awful contract shows that he really learned nothing from the Toine-Raef trade, imo.  Interestingly, if you google Antoine Walker trade 2003, there is another team who consistently shows up - the Knicks.  Apparently, there were proposals for a Sprewell-Walker swap (with perhaps a first round pick also included), whose contracts matched identically, so here's my question - as we know that McHale ultimately traded for Sprewell, largely by using the $11.5 million expiring contract of Terrell Brandon, why couldn't we have facilitated a 3-team trade where Minnesota gets Spree, the Knicks get Toine, and we get the said financial relief provided by Brandon's deal, plus a pick or two from the Knicks?  Brandon didn't even play after 2002, so he wouldn't have taken a roster spot, and if we needed another $2 million to make the transaction, I'm sure that we could have gotten New York or Minnesota to fork up dat cash, lol ;D. I mean, we're talking about the James Dolan-led Knicks, here, haha ;D. Those picks would have been gold.
i take this as your disapproval of the trade between the celtics and brooklyn. you must be hosting a rather small party if you believe this. not only did wallace's contract not prevent any move of significance by the celtics, ainge turned the third year of wallace into one year of lee.

oh...or maybe you were complimenting ainge. if so, my mistake.

Well, if Ainge had drafted better, we never would have been in that position in the first place, imo, and yes, it was the wrong thing to do, but again, that's only my view.  I just can't see Red ever doing something like that - he was far too loyal.

As for Wallace ultimately netting us Lee - woo, lol ::) ;D.

Criticizing the trade that brought Wallace here is bold. You're aware that other elements were involved, correct? That deal is likely to go down as one of the great heists in NBA history, when all is said and done.

Yes, I'm aware of the draft picks, but at the same time, we're now headed into year 3 of the rebuild, and I have yet to see any kind of vision or plan in place other than waiting for some team to stupidly make their superstar(s) available.  What we're in right now is a holding pattern, and I'd be more hopeful about said draft selections if Danny had a good-to-great track record when it comes to drafting, which he does not.  Besides, what if those picks never materialize into anything but mid first rounders?  How would you feel at that point?

I'd feel good. It'd still be excellent value for what they traded away. But I sincerely doubt they'll be mid-tier picks. The Nets are not making the playoffs next year, and that's just the beginning of the road. Put more bluntly, Wallace's contract had had zero effect on the Cs, other than to help net them a sick ransom. So you're just dead wrong.

As for your assessment of Ainge's draft record, I really don't think you have the first clue what you're talking about. Ainge has had misses, yes. But he's also had some pretty serious hits, and he's never drafted higher that 6th, I believe -- he had the 5th pick in 2007 but traded it for Ray Allen. Outside of RC Buford (golden God), considering where he's had his picks he looks pretty strong against virtually any GM, and is far better than many.

Where do you think they'll end up for next year, then?  13 or so?  I just think that it's impossible to get equal value for legends, no matter how old they are, and Wallace's contract just seemed like a weight, quite honestly, but what am I dead wrong about, again?

Also, I think that we're going to save ourselves a lot of time and effort if we just agree to disagree about his drafting record, lol ;D, as I've well documented my position on this in the past in numerous threads.  Not necessarily with you, but I just thought that I'd point that out.  If you read over the stuff I'm pretty sure that you'd draw the same conclusion about me as most people do on here - I'm crazy ::), haha ;D. No big deal.  Don't get me wrong, I hope that it all works out, but I'm also a pessimist, so I'm not exactly looking forward to the prospect of seeing us rely on more ping pong balls, lol ;D. Ugh.

You're dead wrong in attaching any negative significance to Wallace's presence and contract. It was a) essential for the deal to be made (like Bogans), and b) the price of doing business. A trade is not one-sided. For The Celtics to get what they wanted (the mountain of picks) they had to take something The Nets wanted to give up. That was Gerald Wallace and his large contract. As The Celtics were going all in on rebuilding eeking out the cap space to sign a few veterans was irrelevant. The willingness to take on Wallace's contract (who btw was nothing but a positive influence on the youth movement) is what facilitated that deal in both salary matching and in motivation from The Nets (obviously they desired PP and KG as a main motivation, players The Celtics could not give up without taking back salary --- in the form of GW).

Kill the deal as a whole if you want but to isolate Gerald Wallace and make that the key element or principal pillar of that deal is either misguided or disingenuous.

I know how trades work, lol - geez ::), but I don't agree that we were going all in on the rebuild at that time.  That only finally happened last year after Rondo and Green were dealt.  Besides, did Wallace really do anything of significance while he was here, aside from criticizing his teammates in spite of the fact that he couldn't even get on the court himself ::)?
h8rs gon h8



P.s. I think the eye roll emojii should be taken off as an option. What good can come of it other than annoying and offending other posters?

How am I offending other posters by using an emojii that isn't even aimed at them in the slightest?

Re: A classic read: "Danny is a snake"
« Reply #67 on: July 27, 2015, 08:20:18 PM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
It was a good trade in the long-run. Antoine was fool's gold - he put up decent numbers, but in the most inefficient manner, and he got paid a ton of money. Raef was injury-prone, yes, but he did put up decent #'s (and was, prior to the trade, one of the best guys against Shaq), and his contract was key in getting KG. So...already, huge plus. Welsch netted us a 1st, which we used to get Rondo. I mean, honestly, it was addition by subtraction. Walker was a detriment to the team. It was only when he got to Miami, when he had no option but to be a sub, that he finally learned how to be a team guy. Too bad, b/c had he learned that earlier (this is a good argument against tanking, btw - Walker picked up some terrible habits in his first 2 seasons), he had enough talent that he could have been a legit perennial all star.

I generally don't like to tear posts apart so I hope this doesn't come off too harsh, but there are several things wrong here:

- First, the Raef contract was awful. If Danny just wanted Antoine off the team, he should have dumped him for an expiring (or waited for him to expire at the end of the season). Raef's contract led to Ratliff's which led to getting KG, but none of that was really necessary and we actually had to give up the 7th pick in '06 to get Ratliff (and Telfair).

Exactly, and the fact that Danny took on Gerald Wallace's awful contract shows that he really learned nothing from the Toine-Raef trade, imo.  Interestingly, if you google Antoine Walker trade 2003, there is another team who consistently shows up - the Knicks.  Apparently, there were proposals for a Sprewell-Walker swap (with perhaps a first round pick also included), whose contracts matched identically, so here's my question - as we know that McHale ultimately traded for Sprewell, largely by using the $11.5 million expiring contract of Terrell Brandon, why couldn't we have facilitated a 3-team trade where Minnesota gets Spree, the Knicks get Toine, and we get the said financial relief provided by Brandon's deal, plus a pick or two from the Knicks?  Brandon didn't even play after 2002, so he wouldn't have taken a roster spot, and if we needed another $2 million to make the transaction, I'm sure that we could have gotten New York or Minnesota to fork up dat cash, lol ;D. I mean, we're talking about the James Dolan-led Knicks, here, haha ;D. Those picks would have been gold.
i take this as your disapproval of the trade between the celtics and brooklyn. you must be hosting a rather small party if you believe this. not only did wallace's contract not prevent any move of significance by the celtics, ainge turned the third year of wallace into one year of lee.

oh...or maybe you were complimenting ainge. if so, my mistake.

Well, if Ainge had drafted better, we never would have been in that position in the first place, imo, and yes, it was the wrong thing to do, but again, that's only my view.  I just can't see Red ever doing something like that - he was far too loyal.

As for Wallace ultimately netting us Lee - woo, lol ::) ;D.

Criticizing the trade that brought Wallace here is bold. You're aware that other elements were involved, correct? That deal is likely to go down as one of the great heists in NBA history, when all is said and done.

Yes, I'm aware of the draft picks, but at the same time, we're now headed into year 3 of the rebuild, and I have yet to see any kind of vision or plan in place other than waiting for some team to stupidly make their superstar(s) available.  What we're in right now is a holding pattern, and I'd be more hopeful about said draft selections if Danny had a good-to-great track record when it comes to drafting, which he does not.  Besides, what if those picks never materialize into anything but mid first rounders?  How would you feel at that point?

I'd feel good. It'd still be excellent value for what they traded away. But I sincerely doubt they'll be mid-tier picks. The Nets are not making the playoffs next year, and that's just the beginning of the road. Put more bluntly, Wallace's contract had had zero effect on the Cs, other than to help net them a sick ransom. So you're just dead wrong.

As for your assessment of Ainge's draft record, I really don't think you have the first clue what you're talking about. Ainge has had misses, yes. But he's also had some pretty serious hits, and he's never drafted higher that 6th, I believe -- he had the 5th pick in 2007 but traded it for Ray Allen. Outside of RC Buford (golden God), considering where he's had his picks he looks pretty strong against virtually any GM, and is far better than many.

Where do you think they'll end up for next year, then?  13 or so?  I just think that it's impossible to get equal value for legends, no matter how old they are, and Wallace's contract just seemed like a weight, quite honestly, but what am I dead wrong about, again?

Also, I think that we're going to save ourselves a lot of time and effort if we just agree to disagree about his drafting record, lol ;D, as I've well documented my position on this in the past in numerous threads.  Not necessarily with you, but I just thought that I'd point that out.  If you read over the stuff I'm pretty sure that you'd draw the same conclusion about me as most people do on here - I'm crazy ::), haha ;D. No big deal.  Don't get me wrong, I hope that it all works out, but I'm also a pessimist, so I'm not exactly looking forward to the prospect of seeing us rely on more ping pong balls, lol ;D. Ugh.

You're dead wrong in attaching any negative significance to Wallace's presence and contract. It was a) essential for the deal to be made (like Bogans), and b) the price of doing business. A trade is not one-sided. For The Celtics to get what they wanted (the mountain of picks) they had to take something The Nets wanted to give up. That was Gerald Wallace and his large contract. As The Celtics were going all in on rebuilding eeking out the cap space to sign a few veterans was irrelevant. The willingness to take on Wallace's contract (who btw was nothing but a positive influence on the youth movement) is what facilitated that deal in both salary matching and in motivation from The Nets (obviously they desired PP and KG as a main motivation, players The Celtics could not give up without taking back salary --- in the form of GW).

Kill the deal as a whole if you want but to isolate Gerald Wallace and make that the key element or principal pillar of that deal is either misguided or disingenuous.

I know how trades work, lol - geez ::), but I don't agree that we were going all in on the rebuild at that time.  That only finally happened last year after Rondo and Green were dealt.  Besides, did Wallace really do anything of significance while he was here, aside from criticizing his teammates in spite of the fact that he couldn't even get on the court himself ::)?

https://youtu.be/DAZdxOmoZRE

Plus he was, by all acounts, a good role model for younger players (and would likely have gotten the Keith Bogan treatment if he wasn't), and I think he maybe scored a point at some point (although I doubt it)

I know that that's what's been said, but I also wonder what kind of an impression he gave off to our youngsters by essentially just sitting there and collecting dem checks, lol ;D. Hopefully, that wasn't the case.

Re: A classic read: "Danny is a snake"
« Reply #68 on: July 27, 2015, 08:21:33 PM »

Offline Kuberski33

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7068
  • Tommy Points: 532
The Toine trade was not a good one from the standpoint of making the team better, but it was obvious at the time that Danny hated Toine's game and wanted him gone. And looking at it from Danny's view he wanted to change the culture here and Toine was the team leader, plus they weren't going to re-sign him.  I just wish he could have gotten more than a broken down Raef, who just stunk here.

It is interesting to read this article so many years later.  As far as the wheeling and dealing goes, Ainge learned from the end of the Bird era that loyalty to aging stars only runs your team into the ground.  You're not winning anything because the NBA was and is a young man's league.  And because of the salary cap, the wheeling and dealing is necessary to build a team - and I think most players understand that.

Toine remains to this day a very controversial Celtic.  Take away the volume 3's and he was a pretty solid player. 

Re: A classic read: "Danny is a snake"
« Reply #69 on: July 27, 2015, 09:03:48 PM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • NCE
  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20000
  • Tommy Points: 1323
Quote
The Toine trade was not a good one from the standpoint of making the team better, but it was obvious at the time that Danny hated Toine's game and wanted him gone. And looking at it from Danny's view he wanted to change the culture here and Toine was the team leader, plus they weren't going to re-sign him.  I just wish he could have gotten more than a broken down Raef, who just stunk here.

It is interesting to read this article so many years later.  As far as the wheeling and dealing goes, Ainge learned from the end of the Bird era that loyalty to aging stars only runs your team into the ground.  You're not winning anything because the NBA was and is a young man's league.  And because of the salary cap, the wheeling and dealing is necessary to build a team - and I think most players understand that.

Toine remains to this day a very controversial Celtic.  Take away the volume 3's and he was a pretty solid player.

I agree with all of this man, TP.   Sometimes AW drove me mad, with his shot selection, but sometimes he backed up all that swagger.

Re: A classic read: "Danny is a snake"
« Reply #70 on: July 27, 2015, 10:00:15 PM »

Offline ThaPreacher

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1011
  • Tommy Points: 174
  • THA PREACHER
Anyway, Antoine was mostly wrong in his assessment of Danny, but he was right that trading him for Raef LaFrentz was a huge miscalculation.  When you trade your franchise star -- even a flawed one -- you hope to get a building block, rather than somebody where you have to sacrifice a lottery pick just to get rid of their contract.
A healthy Raef LaFrenz is pretty darn good. The problem was he wasn't healthy.

Right. He was injured before the trade, was still injured at the time of the trade, and never really recovered to close the player he could have been.

I understand gambling on injuries. I don't understand gambling on injured players with long-term big money contracts.

Well said!

It's funny.  I remember when we got Antoine Walker back! An answer to Chris Weber in Philly.
 :o
Celtics went on a crazy win streak!  Wonder what might have happened if he had stayed in Boston and played with Ray and KG! :D
Here's a link to a great article!
http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3756860

« Last Edit: July 28, 2015, 08:38:49 AM by ThaPreacher »
"Just do what you do best."  -Red Auerbach-

Re: A classic read: "Danny is a snake"
« Reply #71 on: July 28, 2015, 02:41:37 AM »

Offline crimson_stallion

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5964
  • Tommy Points: 875
Anyway, Antoine was mostly wrong in his assessment of Danny, but he was right that trading him for Raef LaFrentz was a huge miscalculation.  When you trade your franchise star -- even a flawed one -- you hope to get a building block, rather than somebody where you have to sacrifice a lottery pick just to get rid of their contract.
A healthy Raef LaFrenz is pretty darn good. The problem was he wasn't healthy.

Right. He was injured before the trade, was still injured at the time of the trade, and never really recovered to close the player he could have been.

I understand gambling on injuries. I don't understand gambling on injured players with long-term big money contracts.

You mean like all the fans here who wanted us to get Kevin Love?

Re: A classic read: "Danny is a snake"
« Reply #72 on: July 28, 2015, 05:22:36 AM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58470
  • Tommy Points: -25640
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
Anyway, Antoine was mostly wrong in his assessment of Danny, but he was right that trading him for Raef LaFrentz was a huge miscalculation.  When you trade your franchise star -- even a flawed one -- you hope to get a building block, rather than somebody where you have to sacrifice a lottery pick just to get rid of their contract.
A healthy Raef LaFrenz is pretty darn good. The problem was he wasn't healthy.

Right. He was injured before the trade, was still injured at the time of the trade, and never really recovered to close the player he could have been.

I understand gambling on injuries. I don't understand gambling on injured players with long-term big money contracts.

You mean like all the fans here who wanted us to get Kevin Love?

There's a big difference between knee issues / a torn ACL and a dislocated shoulder.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: A classic read: "Danny is a snake"
« Reply #73 on: July 28, 2015, 10:19:04 AM »

Offline 33_Larry Legend_33

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 588
  • Tommy Points: 87
The label I'd put on Antoine would be "frustrating"...

He could do so much, but then again, he'd often just frustrate the daylights out of you.  On any given night he could be Karl Malone - just going strong to the rim, with outstanding low-post moves.  His vision was amazing, sometimes he even looked like Magic Johnson on the floor.  But then he'd stand outside and just chuck 3 after 3...

I honestly think part of his problem was Rick Pitino.  I'm not sure it's good for a guy to be coached in the pros by the same guy who coached him in college.  I think the two of them wore on each other. 

Personally, I actually liked Antoine.  But for all he did good, he brought so much ugliness to the table.  Passionate.  Unique skills.  But ultimately, frustrating to watch.

If we were going to lay blame at a coach for the evolvement of Walker as a player why not start with ML Carr. As a whole I don't put a whole lot of stock in this "team culture" and "culture of winning stuff", but when I do Antoine Walker and ML Carr are two of the first people I think of. I think toine would have possibly had a very different career if he came into a system with a few veterans trying to be competitive instead of one of the few teams to ever admit outright tanking. You think Stevens his rookie year wouldn't have had a difference than "roll the ball out and do what you want" Carr?

ML Carr was a sacrificial lamb.  And it was THE DUMBEST thing the Celtics ever did in my lifetime (of which I started watching basketball when I was around 8-10 yrs old in 1980).  ML wasn't a coach nor a GM, but a PR guy.  Bias dies...but the C's still at least have something to move forward with.  But in 92 Larry retires.  93 Reggie dies and McHale retires.  94 is Parish's last season.  95 is the Dominique season.  And it just went downhill fast from there.  The Celtics bring in Antoine and they should have immediately hired a coach...  But no, they let this thing run a foolish course of stupidity.  Then the Pitino hiring.  And I'm sure Antoine was probably spinning, and also angry.  I saw KY play live a few times as I lived there (work-related) during the Walker era.  All he wanted to do was win.  But he came to the Celtics in a time in which they didn't care about winning...  So yes, what you're saying is totally legit, and it's sad this all came out the way it did.  In many ways, this whole saga ruined Antoine.

related to this, found this article analyzing some of ML Carr's moves as GM http://www.celticslife.com/2009/09/was-ml-carr-that-bad.html

Good find!  I remember all that stuff very well.  It was a tough time to be a C's fan.  For me, becasue I'm a staunch believer in loyalty.  I grew up during the Bird-McHale-Parish era as a young teenager.  Red always talked about loyalty.  And I can see both sides of it - the good and the bad.  But that era, and the ones preceding it, were about building a core team and then keeping them until they retired.  But now the NBA was changing...  And I had a hard time adapting to that as a fan.

Looking at that article, ML actually did do better than he's given credit for.  But I think what bothered me the most is how Larry was treated as a figurehead in this organization.  Nobody was listening to him, but they sure kept parading him out there as their mascot.

The other killer - and I don't think many mention this - was the injury to Dino Radja.  That guy was a STUD!!  But his knee was shot, and he wasn't long for the NBA.  But when the Celtics drafted him in the 2nd round of the 89 draft, had we got him over here from Yugoslavia sooner, it might have extended McHale.

But it's really sad when you stop and think about it...and I guess we can reminisce a bit and play the "What If" game: pretend everything went differently:

Bias lives
Reggie Lewis lives
Radja stays healthy
In 89 we draft Shawn Kemp instead of Michael Smith

Moving forward the team would have been:

Sherman Douglas
Reggie Lewis
Len Bias
Shawn Kemp
Dino Radja
----
Kevin Gamble
Dee Brown
Xavier McDaniel
Rick Fox
Eric Montross
Ed Pinckney

We can dream, right?...  :)

Re: A classic read: "Danny is a snake"
« Reply #74 on: July 28, 2015, 07:59:09 PM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7477
  • Tommy Points: 736
I honestly think part of his problem was Rick Pitino.  I'm not sure it's good for a guy to be coached in the pros by the same guy who coached him in college.  I think the two of them wore on each other. 
I think this is spot on. Partly Pitino, and partly the culture of the team when Antoine joined. His combination of skill and size was extremely rare. Had he went somewhere that demanded focus and accountability, he might have become a hall of famer. Instead, he was drafted by a team that let him do what he wanted offensively and never quite reached his potential, defensively. Too bad.

Bu I also think about how Paul Pierce changed, for the better, after Antoine left. He seemed to take the game more seriously and stepped up as a leader in ways I don't think he ever would have with the more vocal Walker around.
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008