Biggest Celtics disappointment?

[jambr380]

Toronto Raptors continued their trading binge Wednesday, making a seven-player deal with the Boston Celtics in which they rid themselves of unhappy guard Kenny Anderson.

The Raptors also sent center Zan Tabak and forward Popeye Jones to the Celtics for guards Chauncey Billups and Dee Brown and forwards John Thomas and Roy Rogers.

Pitino gave up on Billups way too early.

Kenny Anderson was such a DISAPPOINTMENT. 

I was a big fan of his coming out of college. Heck, everyone was. I enjoyed watching him New Jersey. All-Star. Went to Charlotte and put up a near All-Star year there. Went to Portland and had a very good year there in 1997. Then he comes here ...

He goes from an 18ppg 8apg PG to a a 10-12ppg 5-6apg PG overnight.

He went from one the most exciting ball-handlers in the league to being a basic setup guard who did the right thing and rarely did anything fancy or risky.

I remember expecting Kenny Anderson to make such a good impact here. Never happened. He played alright. I still liked him. He just wasn't what I hoped he was going to be. He didn't live up those expectations.

Anderson averaged 18/8 1 time in his career, which was 3.5 seasons before he came to Boston.  In Portland the first half of the season he was averaging 12.6 ppg and 5.4 apg on terrible shooting.  He shot less in Boston, but significantly improved his shooting percentage and got his AST% back up to near his early NJ days.

Is there a reason we didn't just do the trade with TOR directly for Stoudamire? I liked Kenny and all, but Stoudamire seemed like a better fit and had more potential moving forward with our young core.

As for the answer to the question. It was 2010 and will always be 2010. Not only did we not win the Title that year, but LAL did. That is a two Title swing. And, while I believe championships belong to the city in which they were won, the official count out there right now is 17-17 (and not 17-12). It would be 18-16 if we had just won that stupid game.

[Roy H.]

As for the answer to the question. It was 2010 and will always be 2010. Not only did we not win the Title that year, but LAL did. That is a two Title swing. And, while I believe championships belong to the city in which they were won, the official count out there right now is 17-17 (and not 17-12). It would be 18-16 if we had just won that stupid game.

Aren't we behind now?  I see on social media that it's 17.5 Lakers, 17.0 Celtics.

Haha.

But agreed.  Everything about 2010 completely sucked.  The Perk injury.  Losing to Kobe (Mr. 6-of-24) and him winning MVP.  Losing to the Lakers.  The refs changing up their style of officiating to absolutely screw the Celtics (37-17 FT advantage).

[Donoghus]

As for the answer to the question. It was 2010 and will always be 2010. Not only did we not win the Title that year, but LAL did. That is a two Title swing. And, while I believe championships belong to the city in which they were won, the official count out there right now is 17-17 (and not 17-12). It would be 18-16 if we had just won that stupid game.

Aren't we behind now?  I see on social media that it's 17.5 Lakers, 17.0 Celtics.

Haha.

But agreed.  Everything about 2010 completely sucked.  The Perk injury.  Losing to Kobe (Mr. 6-of-24) and him winning MVP.  Losing to the Lakers.  The refs changing up their style of officiating to absolutely screw the Celtics (37-17 FT advantage).

One game that I've never gone back and rewatched.  Just too painful.

[Kernewek]

As for the answer to the question. It was 2010 and will always be 2010. Not only did we not win the Title that year, but LAL did. That is a two Title swing. And, while I believe championships belong to the city in which they were won, the official count out there right now is 17-17 (and not 17-12). It would be 18-16 if we had just won that stupid game.

Aren't we behind now?  I see on social media that it's 17.5 Lakers, 17.0 Celtics.

Haha.

But agreed.  Everything about 2010 completely sucked.  The Perk injury.  Losing to Kobe (Mr. 6-of-24) and him winning MVP.  Losing to the Lakers.  The refs changing up their style of officiating to absolutely screw the Celtics (37-17 FT advantage).

One game that I've never gone back and rewatched.  Just too painful.

Beyond the loss - which sucked - it's also just a horrible quarter of basketball to watch.

[KeepBigAl]

[/quote]

Aren't we behind now?  I see on social media that it's 17.5 Lakers, 17.0 Celtics.

Haha.

But agreed.  Everything about 2010 completely sucked.  The Perk injury.  Losing to Kobe (Mr. 6-of-24) and him winning MVP.  Losing to the Lakers.  The refs changing up their style of officiating to absolutely screw the Celtics (37-17 FT advantage).
[/quote]


This was a terrible dissapointment I still cannot watch or even think about.

However, the LA Lakers have 12 nba titles.  If they changed their name when leaving Minneapolis (to something that actually made sense), they wouldnt even be calling it 17.

[radiohead]

Aren't we behind now?  I see on social media that it's 17.5 Lakers, 17.0 Celtics.

Haha.

But agreed.  Everything about 2010 completely sucked.  The Perk injury.  Losing to Kobe (Mr. 6-of-24) and him winning MVP.  Losing to the Lakers.  The refs changing up their style of officiating to absolutely screw the Celtics (37-17 FT advantage).
[/quote]


This was a terrible dissapointment I still cannot watch or even think about.

However, the LA Lakers have 12 nba titles.  If they changed their name when leaving Minneapolis (to something that actually made sense), they wouldnt even be calling it 17.
[/quote]

There’s a reason why they called their 1987 championship “The Drive for Five”. That’s because they won their fifth championship that year. The NBA is all about Cities and not Franchises if you ask me.

[Moranis]

Franchises switch cities in every sport and all of the time.  Basically the only time the history has not moved with the team was when the city of Cleveland sued to keep the Browns name AND history when the old Browns became the Ravens. 

And what is the distance that matters. The Patriots used to be the Boston Patriots, playing in Boston.  Then they moved out of Boston and became the New England Patriots. So is 22 miles close enough to keep the history?  What about the Giants, they moved from NY to NJ, ok to keep the name and history? Or the Nets moving from NJ to NY, ok to keep name and history?

The LA Dodgers have had a bunch of different names and cities.  Cleveland Guardians just changed their name again, do they not get to count the Indians 2 championships because they are now the Guardians?  Do the Braves not get to count the 2 from Boston or the 1 from Milwaukee, so they just have 2 titles and not 5?

It is all just silly nonsense. The Lakers franchise has 17 titles.  12 were won while the franchise was in LA, 5 while the franchise was in Minneapolis, but it is still 17 titles for the franchise.

[celticsclay]

Franchises switch cities in every sport and all of the time.  Basically the only time the history has not moved with the team was when the city of Cleveland sued to keep the Browns name AND history when the old Browns became the Ravens. 

And what is the distance that matters. The Patriots used to be the Boston Patriots, playing in Boston.  Then they moved out of Boston and became the New England Patriots. So is 22 miles close enough to keep the history?  What about the Giants, they moved from NY to NJ, ok to keep the name and history? Or the Nets moving from NJ to NY, ok to keep name and history?

The LA Dodgers have had a bunch of different names and cities.  Cleveland Guardians just changed their name again, do they not get to count the Indians 2 championships because they are now the Guardians?  Do the Braves not get to count the 2 from Boston or the 1 from Milwaukee, so they just have 2 titles and not 5?

It is all just silly nonsense. The Lakers franchise has 17 titles.  12 were won while the franchise was in LA, 5 while the franchise was in Minneapolis, but it is still 17 titles for the franchise.

Your example of the patriots stadium moving 22 miles potentially changing whether the titles count may actually be the dumbest attempt at trying to make a point on this forum I have come across. Want to edit that out or ask the question for 100 other franchises that have moved stadiums 20 miles, many of them multiple times? How silly are we getting here? It is such a silly thing it makes it hard to take any of your post seriously.

[celticsclay]

As for the answer to the question. It was 2010 and will always be 2010. Not only did we not win the Title that year, but LAL did. That is a two Title swing. And, while I believe championships belong to the city in which they were won, the official count out there right now is 17-17 (and not 17-12). It would be 18-16 if we had just won that stupid game.

Aren't we behind now?  I see on social media that it's 17.5 Lakers, 17.0 Celtics.

Haha.

But agreed.  Everything about 2010 completely sucked.  The Perk injury.  Losing to Kobe (Mr. 6-of-24) and him winning MVP.  Losing to the Lakers.  The refs changing up their style of officiating to absolutely screw the Celtics (37-17 FT advantage).

Doesn’t the death of bias have a chance of swinging more than one title? Edit never mind saw we can’t include tragedy

[Moranis]

Franchises switch cities in every sport and all of the time.  Basically the only time the history has not moved with the team was when the city of Cleveland sued to keep the Browns name AND history when the old Browns became the Ravens. 

And what is the distance that matters. The Patriots used to be the Boston Patriots, playing in Boston.  Then they moved out of Boston and became the New England Patriots. So is 22 miles close enough to keep the history?  What about the Giants, they moved from NY to NJ, ok to keep the name and history? Or the Nets moving from NJ to NY, ok to keep name and history?

The LA Dodgers have had a bunch of different names and cities.  Cleveland Guardians just changed their name again, do they not get to count the Indians 2 championships because they are now the Guardians?  Do the Braves not get to count the 2 from Boston or the 1 from Milwaukee, so they just have 2 titles and not 5?

It is all just silly nonsense. The Lakers franchise has 17 titles.  12 were won while the franchise was in LA, 5 while the franchise was in Minneapolis, but it is still 17 titles for the franchise.

Your example of the patriots stadium moving 22 miles potentially changing whether the titles count may actually be the dumbest attempt at trying to make a point on this forum I have come across. Want to edit that out or ask the question for 100 other franchises that have moved stadiums 20 miles, many of them multiple times? How silly are we getting here? It is such a silly thing it makes it hard to take any of your post seriously.

that was in fact the point I was making. The whole discussion is stupid. The Lakers have 17 titles. Period.

[KeepBigAl]

Franchises switch cities in every sport and all of the time.  Basically the only time the history has not moved with the team was when the city of Cleveland sued to keep the Browns name AND history when the old Browns became the Ravens. 

And what is the distance that matters. The Patriots used to be the Boston Patriots, playing in Boston.  Then they moved out of Boston and became the New England Patriots. So is 22 miles close enough to keep the history?  What about the Giants, they moved from NY to NJ, ok to keep the name and history? Or the Nets moving from NJ to NY, ok to keep name and history?

The LA Dodgers have had a bunch of different names and cities.  Cleveland Guardians just changed their name again, do they not get to count the Indians 2 championships because they are now the Guardians?  Do the Braves not get to count the 2 from Boston or the 1 from Milwaukee, so they just have 2 titles and not 5?

It is all just silly nonsense. The Lakers franchise has 17 titles.  12 were won while the franchise was in LA, 5 while the franchise was in Minneapolis, but it is still 17 titles for the franchise.

Your example of the patriots stadium moving 22 miles potentially changing whether the titles count may actually be the dumbest attempt at trying to make a point on this forum I have come across. Want to edit that out or ask the question for 100 other franchises that have moved stadiums 20 miles, many of them multiple times? How silly are we getting here? It is such a silly thing it makes it hard to take any of your post seriously.

that was in fact the point I was making. The whole discussion is stupid. The Lakers have 17 titles. Period.

The LA Lakers have 12 - period, end of sentence.   If the franchise owners wish to celebrate 17, I guess that's fine - but if any LA Lakers fans are celebrating titles won around the Great Lakes, they are full of sh*t.

[Redz]

Franchises switch cities in every sport and all of the time.  Basically the only time the history has not moved with the team was when the city of Cleveland sued to keep the Browns name AND history when the old Browns became the Ravens. 

And what is the distance that matters. The Patriots used to be the Boston Patriots, playing in Boston.  Then they moved out of Boston and became the New England Patriots. So is 22 miles close enough to keep the history?  What about the Giants, they moved from NY to NJ, ok to keep the name and history? Or the Nets moving from NJ to NY, ok to keep name and history?

The LA Dodgers have had a bunch of different names and cities.  Cleveland Guardians just changed their name again, do they not get to count the Indians 2 championships because they are now the Guardians?  Do the Braves not get to count the 2 from Boston or the 1 from Milwaukee, so they just have 2 titles and not 5?

It is all just silly nonsense. The Lakers franchise has 17 titles.  12 were won while the franchise was in LA, 5 while the franchise was in Minneapolis, but it is still 17 titles for the franchise.

Your example of the patriots stadium moving 22 miles potentially changing whether the titles count may actually be the dumbest attempt at trying to make a point on this forum I have come across. Want to edit that out or ask the question for 100 other franchises that have moved stadiums 20 miles, many of them multiple times? How silly are we getting here? It is such a silly thing it makes it hard to take any of your post seriously.

that was in fact the point I was making. The whole discussion is stupid. The Lakers have 17 titles. Period.

The LA Lakers have 12 - period, end of sentence.   If the franchise owners wish to celebrate 17, I guess that's fine - but if any LA Lakers fans are celebrating titles won around the Great Lakes, they are full of sh*t.

I hate the Lakers as much as anyone, but not counting their Minnesota championships is just being petty and spiteful. 

[lbgreen33]

Len Bias

Nothing close


As far as on court disappoints those Game 7 home court flops have piled up in the last 20 years or so.  Indy, Miami a couple of times.  I feel like I’m missing one too.

I left our the tragedies, too painful, but your probably thinking of Reggie Lewis, another tragedy.

[lbgreen33]

As for the answer to the question. It was 2010 and will always be 2010. Not only did we not win the Title that year, but LAL did. That is a two Title swing. And, while I believe championships belong to the city in which they were won, the official count out there right now is 17-17 (and not 17-12). It would be 18-16 if we had just won that stupid game.

True, I left out tragedy, too painful and like an act of god.

Aren't we behind now?  I see on social media that it's 17.5 Lakers, 17.0 Celtics.

Haha.

But agreed.  Everything about 2010 completely sucked.  The Perk injury.  Losing to Kobe (Mr. 6-of-24) and him winning MVP.  Losing to the Lakers.  The refs changing up their style of officiating to absolutely screw the Celtics (37-17 FT advantage).

Doesn’t the death of bias have a chance of swinging more than one title? Edit never mind saw we can’t include tragedy

[lbgreen33]

As for the answer to the question. It was 2010 and will always be 2010. Not only did we not win the Title that year, but LAL did. That is a two Title swing. And, while I believe championships belong to the city in which they were won, the official count out there right now is 17-17 (and not 17-12). It would be 18-16 if we had just won that stupid game.

True, I left out tragedy, too painful and like an act of god.

Aren't we behind now?  I see on social media that it's 17.5 Lakers, 17.0 Celtics.

Haha.

But agreed.  Everything about 2010 completely sucked.  The Perk injury.  Losing to Kobe (Mr. 6-of-24) and him winning MVP.  Losing to the Lakers.  The refs changing up their style of officiating to absolutely screw the Celtics (37-17 FT advantage).

Doesn’t the death of bias have a chance of swinging more than one title? Edit never mind saw we can’t include tragedy

True, I left out tragedy because it's too painful and like an act of god