When can we say that Ainge had a terrible offseason?

[winsomme]

If it's true that we don't have to money to compete with SAS and CLE and LA for the players that could come available, then doesn't that call into question the whole idea to use "buy-outs" as the way to fill out our bench....

  Present evidence not withstanding, of course. Are you arguing that it was unlikely to have worked after it worked?

i'm arguing that we stick to the plan and wait for the impact players....

[BballTim]

As far as I can tell Elson wasn't signed to a minimum contract, so I don't think we would've saved anything. He signed a two year 3.4m contract with the bucks. In fact, it would've diminished our chances of getting other players... let me know if I'm wrong though.

I like Brian, always liked him... but are we really going to bunch our panties over him? Seriously. I'd take Moore over Skinner anyways. Also, Skinner has ties with the Clipper franchise, so who knows whats on his mind. Also, if we're talking about money, Brian's minimum salary is higher than POB's.

the problem Bud is the expectations...

Well, I suggest you manage your expectations a bit better.

I like Moore, so I don't see this as a "we simply got someone better than POB".

they're not my expectations they're the expectations of the plan to wait for bought out players...

No. The expectations of the "plan to wait for bought out players" is to fill our roster with people that can help us at cheap prices. Any more than that, is simply being hopeful.

We got Marbury and we got Moore very cheap. We did VERY good.

we could have gotten players just as cheap in the off season.

the plan was to get impact players that are released by teams trying to save money and players looking to make a run at a Title.

it's great that you like Moore. Some people liked Anderson. I like Pollard. There are a bunch of players that each of us like...

the plan was to nab impact players that weren't available in the off season...

  Who could we have gotten that was better than Marbury that was just as cheap in the offseason?

[winsomme]

As far as I can tell Elson wasn't signed to a minimum contract, so I don't think we would've saved anything. He signed a two year 3.4m contract with the bucks. In fact, it would've diminished our chances of getting other players... let me know if I'm wrong though.

I like Brian, always liked him... but are we really going to bunch our panties over him? Seriously. I'd take Moore over Skinner anyways. Also, Skinner has ties with the Clipper franchise, so who knows whats on his mind. Also, if we're talking about money, Brian's minimum salary is higher than POB's.

the problem Bud is the expectations...

Well, I suggest you manage your expectations a bit better.

I like Moore, so I don't see this as a "we simply got someone better than POB".

they're not my expectations they're the expectations of the plan to wait for bought out players...

No. The expectations of the "plan to wait for bought out players" is to fill our roster with people that can help us at cheap prices. Any more than that, is simply being hopeful.

We got Marbury and we got Moore very cheap. We did VERY good.

we could have gotten players just as cheap in the off season.

the plan was to get impact players that are released by teams trying to save money and players looking to make a run at a Title.

it's great that you like Moore. Some people liked Anderson. I like Pollard. There are a bunch of players that each of us like...

the plan was to nab impact players that weren't available in the off season...

  Who could we have gotten that was better than Marbury that was just as cheap in the offseason?

I'm talking about the Moore signing.....

[BudweiserCeltic]

Wether we signed Moore or not has no impact on our ability to sign someone like Smith financially.

[winsomme]

If you are going to sign a player the caliber of Moore, sign him in the off season.

if you're holding out for impact players, then do it...hold out for the impact players.

[winsomme]

Wether we signed Moore or not has no impact on our ability to sign someone like Smith financially.

first, it looks like a "you know what" maneuver if we now target Smith after promising Moore a role here.

plus, if we were really keeping this option open, then we could have not given Mar all that money...if that is in fact how much we gave him....

[winsomme]

Wether we signed Moore or not has no impact on our ability to sign someone like Smith financially.

we also will now have to cut another player to make a roster spot...

[BballTim]

If it's true that we don't have to money to compete with SAS and CLE and LA for the players that could come available, then doesn't that call into question the whole idea to use "buy-outs" as the way to fill out our bench....

  Present evidence not withstanding, of course. Are you arguing that it was unlikely to have worked after it worked?

i'm arguing that we stick to the plan and wait for the impact players....

  How long should we wait? What if those players don't get bought out, or what if they want to sign with other teams? We don't get every player available, and not every buyout rumor comes true.

  Our roster is clearly better than it was last week. It's probably better than it would have been if we'd only signed players in the offseason and foregone the buyout strategy.

[BudweiserCeltic]

If you are going to sign a player the caliber of Moore, sign him in the off season.

if you're holding out for impact players, then do it...hold out for the impact players.

Wether we signed Moore or not has no impact on our ability to sign someone like Smith financially.

first, it looks like a "you know what" maneuver if we now target Smith after promising Moore a role here.

plus, if we were really keeping this option open, then we could have not given Mar all that money...if that is in fact how much we gave him....

So what you really have a problem with is singning Marbury. Why didn't you just say so? Could've saved us a ton of time debating the addition of Moore.

I think you're underestimating Moore regardless. The possibility of missing out on the Smith sweapstakes would have been true wether Moore is here or not, and the consequences of missing out on them without Moore would be quite worse.

Wether we signed Moore or not has no impact on our ability to sign someone like Smith financially.

we also will now have to cut another player to make a roster spot...

Not my problem and do-able. Pruitt is looking quite expendable at the moment.

[BballTim]

As far as I can tell Elson wasn't signed to a minimum contract, so I don't think we would've saved anything. He signed a two year 3.4m contract with the bucks. In fact, it would've diminished our chances of getting other players... let me know if I'm wrong though.

I like Brian, always liked him... but are we really going to bunch our panties over him? Seriously. I'd take Moore over Skinner anyways. Also, Skinner has ties with the Clipper franchise, so who knows whats on his mind. Also, if we're talking about money, Brian's minimum salary is higher than POB's.

the problem Bud is the expectations...

Well, I suggest you manage your expectations a bit better.

I like Moore, so I don't see this as a "we simply got someone better than POB".

they're not my expectations they're the expectations of the plan to wait for bought out players...

No. The expectations of the "plan to wait for bought out players" is to fill our roster with people that can help us at cheap prices. Any more than that, is simply being hopeful.

We got Marbury and we got Moore very cheap. We did VERY good.

we could have gotten players just as cheap in the off season.

the plan was to get impact players that are released by teams trying to save money and players looking to make a run at a Title.

it's great that you like Moore. Some people liked Anderson. I like Pollard. There are a bunch of players that each of us like...

the plan was to nab impact players that weren't available in the off season...

  Who could we have gotten that was better than Marbury that was just as cheap in the offseason?

I'm talking about the Moore signing.....

  You said "we could have gotten players just as cheap in the off season". "players" refers to Moore? And why aren't you talking about Marbury?

  The strategy worked out well, but wasn't absolutely the best scenario that someone can come up with when they have the advantage of seeing future events unfold. I can live with that.

[angryguy77]

Bottom line is this: DA rolled the dice that this team would play better this year compared to last w/o Posey. It didn't go as good as planned I believe so we had to make late season signings. We were lucky to get the guys we did. Most of what GM's do is hinged on luck. I believe that he figured he could make the changes with whoever was available at this point in the season if we had holes to fill. We are strong enough to win it all and it worked out in DA favor. Who cares how this team was put together, I just care that we have a great chance to repeat.

[angryguy77]

Another way to look at it is if we had lost in the playoffs most here would have made Doc public enemy #1. He would have been curcified for his rotations and judgements. But we won and that all went away for the most part. Same thing for DA, if we win this is all a moot point.

[cordobes]

What's the proper way of taking the comments? Getting Mikki Moore had nothing to do with POB and we're never getting that 2nd rounder. I think you're just trying to make the POB's debacle look better.

The cost of POB, besides the money he was paid and the time and effort from the personnel, was even bigger because had Ainge signed a serviceable center instead of POB - like, say, Elson or Skinner, who are not very good but still somewhat better versions of Moore - he wouldn't have been in such a need of pulling the trigger once Moore became available and we'd still have a shot at a player like Smith or Gooden.

By your comments earlier you thought that I had said that we acquired Moore because of POB, which wasn't what I was saying. No matter the way you look at it, Ainge managed to move POB and bring in Moore... doesn't really matter how they came about, just that he did so. That's the bottom line.

The other problem with many of you are saying, is that you're throwing a ton of assumptions of people we could've gotten or people Ainge should've signed, without even knowing if they were realistic options for him and at what price.

If we had signed Elso, like you put it, we would at the moment be in the same situation we're currently at with the Smith and Gooden situation. Our roster would be identical... just substitute Moore for Elson. So your point, in this regard, doesn't mean much.

You said Ainge "CONVERTED" POB into Moore and a 2nd rounder. Not true.

Which is why you took things too literally. Whatever, let's move on from this. As I said, bottom line is that POB's roster spot is now Moores, regardless of how it came about.

Yeah, having Elson or Skinner over Moore would be the worst case scenario. It's a better situation than the one we're now, especially considering that the said player would have a training camp and the entire season to mesh with the team, not just a couple of months (plus, he'd help us in the entire reg. season). Plus, it'd have saved some money, that could be spent on other things (I think that a guy who sings for the minimun with the Clippers would also sing for the minimum with the Celtics, especially considering he'd have some minutes available to play).

And it'd be easier to drop him now and sign Gooden/Smith if they become available (there's no way Ainge can now fire Moore when he just arrived, agents wouldn't like that).

As far as I can tell Elson wasn't signed to a minimum contract, so I don't think we would've saved anything. He signed a two year 3.4m contract with the bucks. In fact, it would've diminished our chances of getting other players... let me know if I'm wrong though.

I like Brian, always liked him... but are we really going to bunch our panties over him? Seriously. I'd take Moore over Skinner anyways. Also, Skinner has ties with the Clipper franchise, so who knows whats on his mind. Also, if we're talking about money, Brian's minimum salary is higher than POB's.

Elson, I don't know if he would have made a discount. I also don't see how he'd have hindered our chances of signing other players (and we didn't need to spend MLE money in House, anyway), because the remaining MLE would be enough and he's good value for that contract.

But most importantly, I think you're missing the point.

Those who say that we couldn't afford to wait for today and pass on Moore say so because POB wasn't a proper backup (I personally think we should have waited regardless because I don't see much of a separation between Moore and other available free-agents, guys like Croshere, Pops or Barron). But if we had signed Skinner, not only we'd have been a better team as we could have afforded to wait for an impact big man to be released. To sum it up, going for the risky choice in the off-season lead to being forced to be risk averse now. Bad trade-off.

I don't see a reason to simply forget the POB's debacle merely because the guy was basically waived and some other player signed. Signing him was a bad move. 


Frankly, after reading so many times that not going to the season without a proper replacement to PJ Brown because we'd be able to sign a better player now, I find it odd the argument now is that we never had a chance of signing those players so the plan was just to sign a guy as good as those we could have got in the off-season.

[amenhotep04]

Bottom line is this: DA rolled the dice that this team would play better this year compared to last w/o Posey. It didn't go as good as planned I believe so we had to make late season signings. We were lucky to get the guys we did. Most of what GM's do is hinged on luck. I believe that he figured he could make the changes with whoever was available at this point in the season if we had holes to fill. We are strong enough to win it all and it worked out in DA favor. Who cares how this team was put together, I just care that we have a great chance to repeat.

I would disagree with your conclusions.  We've got the same record as last year with more injuries.  Last year Danny signed a center and point guard late in the season for added depth.  This year he has done the same. Going into this year the feeling was we'd have a better team, only not as good of a record.  The second unit has largely been inconsistent compared to last year, but Doc is also using more second unit players consistently for more minutes.  Comparing last year to this, IF everyone is healthy, I'd say this team has more overall depth, and will be a better team in the playoffs than last year.

The general rule is not how you begin the season, but how you finish.  This team has more ability to finish stronger than last year. The question then becomes will Cleveland and the Lakers be better than the Cs?  We've got better play this year from every position with the exception of the role that Posey played.  Was his contribution better last year than the improvements in the other areas this year? My feeling is 'no', not if everyone is healthy.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Elson, I don't know if he would have made a discount. I also don't see how he'd have hindered our chances of signing other players (and we didn't need to spend MLE money in House, anyway), because the remaining MLE would be enough and he's good value for that contract.

You're playing the "in hindsight" game here. I'm with you on the House thing, but if it's not you, it would be someone else complaining about why we didn't sign House. But if not House, then who? And for what price, and would he had accepted? And more importantly, would we have been better off?

Also, you have to consider the tax implications of a 1.7 million contact, versus a player with a minimum contract (which the NBA pays half of).

Edit: Misread your opening sentece. But whatever. Thought you said "Elson would've taken a discount" for some reason. So editing the first paragraph accordingly.

But most importantly, I think you're missing the point.

Those who say that we couldn't afford to wait for today and pass on Moore say so because POB wasn't a proper backup (I personally think we should have waited regardless because I don't see much a separation between Moore and other available free-agents, guys like Croshere, Pops or Barron). But if we had signed Skinner, not only we'd have been a better team as we could have afforded to way for an impact big man to be released. To sum it up, going for the risky choice in the off-season lead to being forced to be risk averse now. Bad trade-off.

I don't see a reason to simply forget the POB's debacle merely because the guy was basically waived and some other player signed. Signing him was a bad move. 


Frankly, after reading so many times that not going to the season without a proper replacement to PJ Brown because we'd be able to sign a better player now, I find it odd the argument now is that we never had a chance of signing those players so the plan was just to sign a guy as good as those we could have got in the off-season.

Not wanting to pass on Moore has nothing to do with POB. If we had signed Skinner (assuming we could've at the adequate price), we would be at the same position at the moment in the "waiting" game. And I still like Moore over Skinner.

I've never played the PJ game myself. I never brought the "we need to replace him" card.

The main difference in all of this is the opinion of Moore as a player. I think he's better than what you think of him. Not that I think a ton of him, but I don't think that enough credit is going towards him. He's being treated like a bum (not really by you) by many here.