It's hilarious how the fanbase has turned 180 and would "rather have" Wallace

[TA9]

Do people really think that if we make the playoffs again with a win total in the 40s -- and maybe win a game this time! -- that big name free agents will suddenly be clamoring to sign here?

No, but you can't deny that it would probably make our chances better compared to if we finished last in the East

This is not a -------------> line.
This is a <--------------->

If you finish last in the East, you get a really good shot at the top pick in the draft.

Thanks. I think we all know that.
I just pointed out that finishing higher than last would improve our chances with the big name free agents.

This team just lost out on a player who chose the Bucks.  Are you saying that a two game difference (40-42 v. 42-40) would have made the difference?

Y'all need to come to reality.

Boston was never in play for Monroe.
4 teams wanted Monroe; Lakers, Blazers, Knicks and Bucks.

So shortly: We will never know the answer to a scenario where Monroe had to choose between Bucks and Celtics !
But if the Celtics had a better record than the Bucks he could have most likely ended up here (If we pursued him). His agent said he chose the Bucks because they had a better chance of making the playoffs.

http://www.celticsblog.com/2015/6/29/8860787/celtics-plan-to-meet-with-greg-monroe-and-other-free-agents

You can't even prove that they did meet.
Danny didn't make an offer so Monroe never had the chance to weigh the scenarios of joining Celtics or Bucks.

Ramona Shelburne: Monroe’s agent David Falk tells @Chris Broussard “All four teams we met with offered the max for 1, 2, 3 or 4 years – whatever we wanted.”

Furthermore his agent only mentioned 4 teams - Knicks, Blazers, Bucks and Lakers..

I never made a claim that Boston and Monroe met.  You claimed Boston was never in play for Monroe.  I demonstrated that, at least according to reports, your position is incorrect.

I think it depends on how you look at it. I don't see how Boston was in play as they never submitted an offer and furthermore never met (I assume they didn't as there aren't any reports claiming that they did)

[YeezusChrist]

Do people really think that if we make the playoffs again with a win total in the 40s -- and maybe win a game this time! -- that big name free agents will suddenly be clamoring to sign here?

No, but you can't deny that it would probably make our chances better compared to if we finished last in the East

This is not a -------------> line.
This is a <--------------->

If you finish last in the East, you get a really good shot at the top pick in the draft.

Thanks. I think we all know that.
I just pointed out that finishing higher than last would improve our chances with the big name free agents.

This team just lost out on a player who chose the Bucks.  Are you saying that a two game difference (40-42 v. 42-40) would have made the difference?

Y'all need to come to reality.

Boston never was in play for Monroe.
4 teams wanted Monroe; Lakers, Blazers, Knicks and Bucks.

So shortly: We will never know the answer to a scenario where Monroe had to chose between Bucks and Celtics !
But if the Celtics had a better record than the Bucks he could have most likely ended up here (If we pursued him). His agent said he chose the Bucks because they had a better chance of making the playoffs.

BS!!!!

Which team looks like a better situation to you

Smart
Bradley
Turner
Sully

or

Carter Williams
Middleton
Giannis
Jabari Parker

It is not a hard choice

True. Everybody would choose Boston

Lol but seriously... I would say the squads (with the players mentioned above) are pretty even for NOW.
Michael Carter Williams put up huge numbers on a bad team. The guy hasn't even proved anything yet.
Giannis isn't even that good right now (I'm not saying he will be bad in the future). Kelly is putting up better numbers Per 36.

So the Lakers, with their tanking and their #3 pick and Julius Randle, managed to sign which big name free agents after putting up a losing record last season? Shows you how effective that strategy is, especially considering they are a more attractive market for free agents in general than most cities.

It's not an immediate thing!! In a few years I think they will be able to get a Big name to go there. It's just like when Anthony Davis was drafted by the Pelicans it wasn't like every single superstar was lining outside of the door to sign there.

But Next year and the year after that I think there will be a long line of players trying to sign there because he was a top draft pick that developed into a superstar and that's something we lack and the lakers have a potential superstar now if everything goes right.

We have Marcus and I think he could be something special but not a leading scorer superstar and that's what we need to attract free agents

[TA9]

Do people really think that if we make the playoffs again with a win total in the 40s -- and maybe win a game this time! -- that big name free agents will suddenly be clamoring to sign here?

No, but you can't deny that it would probably make our chances better compared to if we finished last in the East

This is not a -------------> line.
This is a <--------------->

If you finish last in the East, you get a really good shot at the top pick in the draft.

Thanks. I think we all know that.
I just pointed out that finishing higher than last would improve our chances with the big name free agents.

This team just lost out on a player who chose the Bucks.  Are you saying that a two game difference (40-42 v. 42-40) would have made the difference?

Y'all need to come to reality.

Boston never was in play for Monroe.
4 teams wanted Monroe; Lakers, Blazers, Knicks and Bucks.

So shortly: We will never know the answer to a scenario where Monroe had to chose between Bucks and Celtics !
But if the Celtics had a better record than the Bucks he could have most likely ended up here (If we pursued him). His agent said he chose the Bucks because they had a better chance of making the playoffs.

BS!!!!

Which team looks like a better situation to you

Smart
Bradley
Turner
Sully

or

Carter Williams
Middleton
Giannis
Jabari Parker

It is not a hard choice

True. Everybody would choose Boston

Lol but seriously... I would say the squads (with the players mentioned above) are pretty even for NOW.
Michael Carter Williams put up huge numbers on a bad team. The guy hasn't even proved anything yet.
Giannis isn't even that good right now (I'm not saying he will be bad in the future). Kelly is putting up better numbers Per 36.

Are you serious?!?!
MCW vs Marcus is the only player matchup that swings our way all of the other players are far superior and have much higher potential!!!

You can ask almost any Celtics...hell any basketball fan in the world if they had to choose between our 4 starters or their 4 starters they would laugh hysterically while screaming for the Bucks players!!

Can we stop overvaluing our players please!!! X)) hahaha

Yeah I'm serious lol. I only said that we are even for now which means that I didn't exclude the fact that Bucks will be better later due to their huge potential as you pointed out yourself .

[Jonny CC]

I like how one opinion can be conflated to "everyone"/"the fanbase" 

David Lee sucks. Has nothing to do with Wallace, IMO, beyond the fact that I'd rather cheer for Wallace as our best cheerleader than Lee as our best player.

If David Lee sucks then what does that say about Wallace?!?!  Even if Lee was worse than Wallace (who never played), the deal is worth it for the additional cap space at the end of the year.   I don't understand your logic.

Wallace on the bench is more of a positive contribution to the Celtics than Lee playing 20-40 minutes per game. I don't know if you're familiar with addition by subtraction, but the inverse is a real thing too.

Pho, per usual, types faster than me and makes the point better.

Although it's possible that Lee will spur on the rebirth of post play in the Garden as opposing teams get the ball down low against him night after night.

How do you know this?  You know for a fact that Wallace is a better influence in the locker-room than Lee??  This is clearly making stuff up just to have a differing opinion with no facts to back up your stance.  Keep reaching...trying to convince yourself that it's a bad deal.   

Where did I say anything about the locker room?

Are you mentally handicapped? I can explain myself more if that's the case, because you're clearly not understanding what I said there.

"Mentally handicapped"?  Really?  No need to get bent out of shape because you've been proven wrong.  Locker-room, bench...what difference does it make?  I will change my original post but you still won't have an answer...hence the insults.

How do you know this?  You know for a fact that Wallace is a better influence ON THE BENCH than Lee??  This is clearly making stuff up just to have a differing opinion with no facts to back up your stance.  Keep reaching...trying to convince yourself that it's a bad deal.

How's that?  Now try to answer it without the name calling. 

[Scintan]

Do people really think that if we make the playoffs again with a win total in the 40s -- and maybe win a game this time! -- that big name free agents will suddenly be clamoring to sign here?

No, but you can't deny that it would probably make our chances better compared to if we finished last in the East

This is not a -------------> line.
This is a <--------------->

If you finish last in the East, you get a really good shot at the top pick in the draft.

Thanks. I think we all know that.
I just pointed out that finishing higher than last would improve our chances with the big name free agents.

This team just lost out on a player who chose the Bucks.  Are you saying that a two game difference (40-42 v. 42-40) would have made the difference?

Y'all need to come to reality.

Boston was never in play for Monroe.
4 teams wanted Monroe; Lakers, Blazers, Knicks and Bucks.

So shortly: We will never know the answer to a scenario where Monroe had to choose between Bucks and Celtics !
But if the Celtics had a better record than the Bucks he could have most likely ended up here (If we pursued him). His agent said he chose the Bucks because they had a better chance of making the playoffs.

http://www.celticsblog.com/2015/6/29/8860787/celtics-plan-to-meet-with-greg-monroe-and-other-free-agents

You can't even prove that they did meet.
Danny didn't make an offer so Monroe never had the chance to weigh the scenarios of joining Celtics or Bucks.

Ramona Shelburne: Monroe’s agent David Falk tells @Chris Broussard “All four teams we met with offered the max for 1, 2, 3 or 4 years – whatever we wanted.”

Furthermore his agent only mentioned 4 teams - Knicks, Blazers, Bucks and Lakers..

I never made a claim that Boston and Monroe met.  You claimed Boston was never in play for Monroe.  I demonstrated that, at least according to reports, your position is incorrect.

I think it depends on how you look at it. I don't see how Boston was in play as they never submitted an offer and furthermore never met (I assume they didn't as there isn't any reports claiming that they did)

It's in the article:

Five teams have shown serious interest — the Boston Celtics, New York Knicks, Milwaukee Bucks, Los Angeles Lakers and Portland Trail Blazers. Monroe said he'll meet with those teams this week.

Subsequent events seemingly changed the initial situation but, according to the report, Boston was in play at the start.

[hpantazo]

Do people really think that if we make the playoffs again with a win total in the 40s -- and maybe win a game this time! -- that big name free agents will suddenly be clamoring to sign here?

No, but you can't deny that it would probably make our chances better compared to if we finished last in the East

This is not a -------------> line.
This is a <--------------->

If you finish last in the East, you get a really good shot at the top pick in the draft.

Thanks. I think we all know that.
I just pointed out that finishing higher than last would improve our chances with the big name free agents.

This team just lost out on a player who chose the Bucks.  Are you saying that a two game difference (40-42 v. 42-40) would have made the difference?

Y'all need to come to reality.

Boston was never in play for Monroe.
4 teams wanted Monroe; Lakers, Blazers, Knicks and Bucks.

So shortly: We will never know the answer to a scenario where Monroe had to choose between Bucks and Celtics !
But if the Celtics had a better record than the Bucks he could have most likely ended up here (If we pursued him). His agent said he chose the Bucks because they had a better chance of making the playoffs.

http://www.celticsblog.com/2015/6/29/8860787/celtics-plan-to-meet-with-greg-monroe-and-other-free-agents

You can't even prove that they did meet.
Danny didn't make an offer so Monroe never had the chance to weigh the scenarios of joining Celtics or Bucks.

Ramona Shelburne: Monroe’s agent David Falk tells @Chris Broussard “All four teams we met with offered the max for 1, 2, 3 or 4 years – whatever we wanted.”

Furthermore his agent only mentioned 4 teams - Knicks, Blazers, Bucks and Lakers..

I never made a claim that Boston and Monroe met.  You claimed Boston was never in play for Monroe.  I demonstrated that, at least according to reports, your position is incorrect.

I think it depends on how you look at it. I don't see how Boston was in play as they never submitted an offer and furthermore never met (I assume they didn't as there isn't any reports claiming that they did)

It's in the article:

Five teams have shown serious interest — the Boston Celtics, New York Knicks, Milwaukee Bucks, Los Angeles Lakers and Portland Trail Blazers. Monroe said he'll meet with those teams this week.

Subsequent events seemingly changed the initial situation but, according to the report, Boston was in play at the start.

It is likely that, just as with Tobias Harris, when Ainge saw that all the other teams were going to offer him max money and years, he pulled out, as he wasn't willing to commit that much money long term to him.

[YeezusChrist]

I like how one opinion can be conflated to "everyone"/"the fanbase" 

David Lee sucks. Has nothing to do with Wallace, IMO, beyond the fact that I'd rather cheer for Wallace as our best cheerleader than Lee as our best player.

If David Lee sucks then what does that say about Wallace?!?!  Even if Lee was worse than Wallace (who never played), the deal is worth it for the additional cap space at the end of the year.   I don't understand your logic.

Wallace on the bench is more of a positive contribution to the Celtics than Lee playing 20-40 minutes per game. I don't know if you're familiar with addition by subtraction, but the inverse is a real thing too.

Pho, per usual, types faster than me and makes the point better.

Although it's possible that Lee will spur on the rebirth of post play in the Garden as opposing teams get the ball down low against him night after night.

How do you know this?  You know for a fact that Wallace is a better influence in the locker-room than Lee??  This is clearly making stuff up just to have a differing opinion with no facts to back up your stance.  Keep reaching...trying to convince yourself that it's a bad deal.   

Where did I say anything about the locker room?

Are you mentally handicapped? I can explain myself more if that's the case, because you're clearly not understanding what I said there.

"Mentally handicapped"?  Really?  No need to get bent out of shape because you've been proven wrong.  Locker-room, bench...what difference does it make?  I will change my original post but you still won't have an answer...hence the insults.

How do you know this?  You know for a fact that Wallace is a better influence ON THE BENCH than Lee??  This is clearly making stuff up just to have a differing opinion with no facts to back up your stance.  Keep reaching...trying to convince yourself that it's a bad deal.

How's that?  Now try to answer it without the name calling.

He still doesn't get it

[PhoSita]

How's that?  Now try to answer it without the name calling.

I'm struggling to understand how you are failing to grasp the point.  I don't mean to insult you, but D.o.s. has made it pretty clear.

D.o.s. feels that David Lee is a net negative when he's on the floor.  He makes the team worse.  Therefore, a guy who sits on the bench is better for the team than David Lee getting playing time.

Clear it up for you?

[gpap]

It's a good move. We basically traded a guy WHO DIDN'T PLAY for a guy who can make an impact on this team.

Seriously F*** tanking. We need to win now otherwise no "big star" would choose to play for the Celtics in the future (hence LaMarcus Aldridge, Kevin Love, DeAndre Jordan, Greg Monroe etc. who didn't want to join Lakers because they are a mess)

10000 Tommy points coming your way.

[Jonny CC]

How's that?  Now try to answer it without the name calling.

I'm struggling to understand how you are failing to grasp the point.  I don't mean to insult you, but D.o.s. has made it pretty clear.

D.o.s. feels that David Lee is a net negative when he's on the floor.  He makes the team worse.  Therefore, a guy who sits on the bench is better for the team than David Lee getting playing time.

Clear it up for you?

I get it but I don't agree with it.  It's silly to think that a good scorer and rebounder is a bad thing.  It's an upgrade at PF/C.  And he has a good expiring contract. 

[D.o.s.]

I like how one opinion can be conflated to "everyone"/"the fanbase" 

David Lee sucks. Has nothing to do with Wallace, IMO, beyond the fact that I'd rather cheer for Wallace as our best cheerleader than Lee as our best player.

If David Lee sucks then what does that say about Wallace?!?!  Even if Lee was worse than Wallace (who never played), the deal is worth it for the additional cap space at the end of the year.   I don't understand your logic.

Wallace on the bench is more of a positive contribution to the Celtics than Lee playing 20-40 minutes per game. I don't know if you're familiar with addition by subtraction, but the inverse is a real thing too.

Pho, per usual, types faster than me and makes the point better.

Although it's possible that Lee will spur on the rebirth of post play in the Garden as opposing teams get the ball down low against him night after night.

How do you know this?  You know for a fact that Wallace is a better influence in the locker-room than Lee??  This is clearly making stuff up just to have a differing opinion with no facts to back up your stance.  Keep reaching...trying to convince yourself that it's a bad deal.   

Where did I say anything about the locker room?

Are you mentally handicapped? I can explain myself more if that's the case, because you're clearly not understanding what I said there.

"Mentally handicapped"?  Really?  No need to get bent out of shape because you've been proven wrong.  Locker-room, bench...what difference does it make?  I will change my original post but you still won't have an answer...hence the insults.

How do you know this?  You know for a fact that Wallace is a better influence ON THE BENCH than Lee??  This is clearly making stuff up just to have a differing opinion with no facts to back up your stance.  Keep reaching...trying to convince yourself that it's a bad deal.

How's that?  Now try to answer it without the name calling.

Again, you're the one that is bringing in "the lockerroom" and "being an influence." This is why I asked if you have some kind of cognition problem, because I'm not addressing either of those things.

Having a player on the bench vs. having a player on the floor is a pretty common description between "a guy who plays" and "A guy who doesn't play" (your words). My point, which you seem to have totally missed, is that just because we're putting a new player into the rotation does not mean the team is automatically better.

That has zero to do with anything involving the locker room, or a player's influence, because I'm only talking about playing time. On the court. I don't care if he's a good Samaritan in this discussion.

That said, I will rephrase my point for you, using simple words, clear language, and pictures.

Gerald Wallace:


Playing
0 minutes

is better for the Celtics than David Lee:



Playing
20-40 minutes

[TA9]

It's a good move. We basically traded a guy WHO DIDN'T PLAY for a guy who can make an impact on this team.

Seriously F*** tanking. We need to win now otherwise no "big star" would choose to play for the Celtics in the future (hence LaMarcus Aldridge, Kevin Love, DeAndre Jordan, Greg Monroe etc. who didn't want to join Lakers because they are a mess)

10000 Tommy points coming your way.

Haha TP to you too! Glad that somebody agrees!

[SHAQATTACK]

Wallace stinks

He can't clear out fast enough ....

Oh.....

Wallace ......take ET with you.

[Jonny CC]

How's that?  Now try to answer it without the name calling.

I'm struggling to understand how you are failing to grasp the point.  I don't mean to insult you, but D.o.s. has made it pretty clear.

D.o.s. feels that David Lee is a net negative when he's on the floor.  He makes the team worse.  Therefore, a guy who sits on the bench is better for the team than David Lee getting playing time.

Clear it up for you?

In general, if people are going to ignore the facts just to try to make a point, they should expect to be called out on it.  As I stated in a different post, it's not like Lee is replacing Drummond.  His offensive contributions will offset any defensive difference.   Now that shouldn't be hard to understand. 

[gpap]

It's a good move. We basically traded a guy WHO DIDN'T PLAY for a guy who can make an impact on this team.

Seriously F*** tanking. We need to win now otherwise no "big star" would choose to play for the Celtics in the future (hence LaMarcus Aldridge, Kevin Love, DeAndre Jordan, Greg Monroe etc. who didn't want to join Lakers because they are a mess)

They didn't want to join us either even though we made the playoffs...

So if we put ourselves in the same position it is sure to work this time 

Come on we barely made the Playoffs this year. We weren't a lock at all. I presume that our chances would be better with the big players if we finish mid table.

We are still not a lock this year we would be fighting for the 8th seed

Cavs
Bulls
Toronto
Atlanta
Wizards
Bucks
Heat

That's 7 locks with Pacers, Nets, Hornets, Pistons, Knicks, Magic and Us all fighting for the last spot since we all have pretty much equal talent

Those teams could just as easily fail.

Pacers - How's Paul George going to rebound? Coming back from a broken leg is no easy task. Also, who's their center? A rookie Myles Turner? Or Ian Mahimi? Either way, the choices aren't great

Nets - Are Lopez, DWill and JJ going to stay healthy?

Hornets - Not sure how they're better than the Celtics. I like Kemba Walker and Cody Zeller always seems to play us tough. Other than that, I am not that impressed. Jefferson is still a good post player but he gets injured a lot

Pistons - Lost Monroe and replaced him with Ilyasova. Big loss. Jackson and Drummond are good for their position, though Drummond can't score to save his life. Also, not impressed with the rest of the roster

Knicks - Huge question mark. How does Melo rebound after being missing half the season? Do Robin Lopez and Aaron Afflalo really move the needle that much for the Knicks?

Magic - ? Still a bottom feeding team, IMO.

Heat - How do they rebound with a injury prone Wade and Chris Bosh coming back from a serious issue (blood clots.)

Raptors, Wizards and Hawks - Those three teams have maxed out their talent. Mark my words.
And the Raptors and Hawks could both be losing Derozan and Horford to free agency, respectively

It could just as likely be

Cavs
Bulls
Bucks
Celtics
Wizards
Heat
Raptors
? for the 8th seed