CelticsStrong
Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: Roy H. on February 05, 2013, 04:47:08 PM
-
Years ago, I remember the New York Yankees fan base being criticized. The gist of the criticism was that they were spoiled, arrogant fans, for whom only championships mattered (and to which they were entitled). They didn't appreciate their players, only seeing them as a means to an end.
Now, bashing Yankees fans is a New England birth right. However, I've been thinking about that criticism a lot over the last few months, and am wondering if it applies equally to Boston fans. If so, is that a bad thing? Or, are titles the only reason why we watch sports?
I think that where you come down on that question -- are titles the only thing that is important -- probably heavily influences where you fall on the "trade Pierce and/or KG" debate. Many fans who only value titles are going to take a look at our current roster, coldly assess its championship chances, and decide that it's time to rebuild, hopefully transitioning to the next title team. Now, even among the "title only" fans, there can be disagreement; somebody may believe that this year's team has at least as good of a shot at winning a title as any rebuilding team is likely to have over the next 5-10 years. However, most of the "trade KG / Pierce" fans are doing it because they feel like a season without a title is a failure.
I'd submit that there's more to sports than winning championships. Sure, that's the ultimate goal. However, there's something to be said for watching all-time greats play. How many fans of losing franchises would kill to have the chance to watch KG play every night? How many fans of other franchises would love to cheer on the second and fourth leading scorers among active players?
For fans who love the game beyond just winning titles, turning on the TV and rooting their team on to a hard-fought victory is always going to be superior to rooting for their team to lose. Playoff games -- even if they result in first round exits -- are more fun to root for than ping pong balls.
There's a lot of criticism that fans who root with their hearts or with sentimentality are somehow missing the bigger picture. I don't think so. Watching the Captain hit a dagger against the Clippers or watching KG make a huge defensive play are always going to be enjoyable experiences, and there's nothing at all wrong with those fans who want to enjoy another season or two of that before we move on to the next phase. To many fans, it's infinitely more enjoyable to watch KG bleed green than it is to root for the next Gerald Green.
-
I don't think championships are the only that counts for me as a fan, but they definitely can define and distinguish a group of players.
There are a ton of years for teams that I root for that are some of my favorites despite having missed winning a title.
Neely & Bourques Bruins
Reggie Lewis led Celts teams.
Most of the Sox teams of my youth.
-
My perspective.
I'm a fan of the game and of the Celtics. I root for them to win, but the ultimate goal is winning the title. Wanting to see the team at the top of the sport.
I want that to happen as quick as possible, which is why I am against holding on to players just to see an early round exit. I figure I have plenty of years to see us not win a title, but not many seeing us actually win it all. So for me moving on as quick as possible is the goal.
I'll admit that seeing favorite players go is tough. Watching PP and KG walk out that door is hard to do, but the next great Celtic can't walk through the door until we start rebuilding and moving on to the next phase.
That is just how I view it.
-
A championship is awesome. Taking the best team in the league to 7 games with a roster full of over-the-hill and injured players who aren't supposed to even be there is pretty awesome too. Heartbreaking, yup, but I'd rather have heartbreak than mediocrity.
-
No, but they do matter a whole lot!
As a general rule, I'd say that the Celtics should always be in one of two modes: Contending for Championships or Getting into Position to Contend for Championships. They should never be Settling for Middle of the Pack.
Having said that, I am opposed to trading Pierce and/or KG in anything less than an Auerbachian swindle of a deal. I firmly believe you need players like Pierce and KG on your team if you are going to compete for championships...even at their advanced age...so unless you're getting someone better (and there are very few better) you don't trade them.
-
You need to at least feel it is a possibility. That you can compete for one or your team will get a chance to play for one down the road. That is building towards a title.
-
TP for a great post, Roy. Of course a championship is the most satisfactory outcome for any season that one is rooting for a sports team. But, for me, it's not the only way I define a great season. I think you can definitely have a great season while falling short of the ultimate goal.
Personally, I've never subscribed to the theory that it's better to tank and start over than to stick with a team that is good enough to make the playoffs but a long shot to win the whole thing.
-
I don't expect titles, but I expect to be in the mix.
80's Boston sports fans got to see the Pats not win the Superbowl, Red Sox not win the world series, the Bruins with Bourque/Neely/GreatGoalie not win the cup, and the Celtics win championships, but almost always in the Finals (losses to LA in 87 and 88), ECF, or having epic playoff battles with the best stars, as against Dominique and Jordan, in playoff runs that fall far short of the goal.
This current C's team, once it gets everything lubed up and tuned up, will be one hell of a tough out in the playoffs. The starting defense has disruptive potential, and the bench has explosive scoring potential. Who would want to game plan for that?
That's why I want to get that one piece that, IMO, would give this team more than a long-shot chance to do something special in the playoffs this year and next.
We can be more than a tough out.
-
You need to at least feel it is a possibility. That you can compete for one or your team will get a chance to play for one down the road. That is building towards a title.
I agree with this, with one exception: if the team has been terrible for a long time (e.g. 4-5 seasons) and the organization has been in disarray, then I'd start to feel like just having a reasonably competitive season that ended in a trip to the playoffs would be worthwhile, even if the team made a few "win-now" moves at the expense of potential to do it.
For example, if I were a fan of the Kings or the Wizards, I'd be okay with trading young guys just to put together a decent, watchable team for a season or three. It's important, I think, not to get stuck in a recurring cycle of losing. There's long-term value in breaking out of that.
That thinking is what affects my willingness to blow up the Celtics -- it's not always wrong to want to keep a playoff-caliber team together just for the sake of making the playoffs despite the fact that you have no realistic shot at a championship.
But when the team has been a contender or fringe contender for 5 straight years, I don't feel a desperate need to win 40 or so games just for the sake of it. I can deal with this team being in the lottery for a few years if it means we can get closer to being a 60 win team sooner.
-
Nope not at all...which is why I'd rather go down fighting with kg/pierce with little chance at a championship then trade them for any package I've seen thrown out there
-
I wouldn't say its the ONLY thing that matters. However i agree with what another poster has said. Boston should either be contending for championships or getting itself in position to contend for one. Not just settling for being a middle of the pack team.
Championships is the ultimate goal. Its ALOT more fun for me when my team has a legit shot at a title like my patriots do every single year. Even if they don't win it every year i know they're serious contenders every year which makes it fun to watch.
Now is it championship or bust? That depends on the situation. If you're coming into a season built to win a championship and it can realistically be done and that's the goal and by the end of the season it doesn't get done? Then yeah, its a bust.
Just like my patriots id consider this year a total failure because the goal was to win a championship and it didn't get done. The goal was not to lose to miami or the bulls in the playoffs. So if that happens it will be a failure to me.
-
For the most part I think so, but that is a very tough question to answer. I guess I ultimately am unless the player does a Hometown discount.
I think for certain organizations this is true. And thus it will be of its fans.
Patriots are definitely that way. In a way I beliece they are the most cold blooded team in sports and that isn't bad. I mean it along of the lines of there is no sentimental attachments with them.
They wouldn't hesitate to Tom Brady if someone offered them the RG3 trade package. Kraft already said he wants to keep Brady arounds as long as possible "as long as he is productive". Guys like Seymour, etc. have been moved for packages that NE thought would help them win more titles in the future.
The Dallas Cowboys are like this. So are the Lakers and Yankees. LA shipped out Shaq after he really was the prime guy to revitalize the organization. Gasol and Odom were as good as gone one year after helping them win two titles. Fisher was dumped in Houston.
Some teams are more sentimental then others. Spurs for example are. Dallas with Dirk is.
I'm not really sure where Boston is in that regard. I tend to think the Celtics would be somewhere in between where the Patriots are and where the Spurs are.
-
For the most part I think so, but that is a very tough question to answer.
I think for certain organizations this is true.
Patriots are definitely that way. In a way I beliece they are the most cold blooded team in sports and that isn't bad. I mean it along of the lines of there is no sentimental attachments with them.
They wouldn't hesitate to Tom Brady if someone offered them the RG3 trade package. Kraft already said he wants to keep Brady arounds as long as possible "as long as he is productive". Guys like Seymour, etc. have been moved for packages that NE thought would help them win more titles in the future.
The Dallas Cowboys are like this. So are the Lakers and Yankees. LA shipped out Shaq after he really was the prime guy to revitalize the organization. Gasol and Odom were as good as gone one year after helping them win two titles. Fisher was dumped in Houston.
Some teams are more sentimental then others. Spurs for example are. Dallas with Dirk is.
I'm not really sure where Boston is in that regard. I tend to think the Celtics would be somewhere in between where the Patriots are and where the Spurs are.
idk...the patriots are like this but only because they have Brady/Bellichick....I think bill was actually somewhat satisfied with the growth of the team and certain players this year and there was no championship..they're actually growing towards a title in a totally different era other then Brady when they actually won...once they're gone so will be the expectations for a championship every year, I also think there's a chance they get sentimental about Brady.
I also think the cowboys are at a point where they would be satisfied with a couple playoff wins...the steelers are more championship or bust.
-
I will also say this...
Watching the Celtics from 2008-now has been much more enjoyable then watching the Celtics of 2002-04.
I would rather watch my team competing for a title then a certain player who I liked regardless of legacy.
So yeah I would trade watching the last 2 years of KG and Pierce if it meant in 2-3 years I got to watch my Celtics play in late May and June for another 5-6 year run.
That's just me.
-
I will also say this...
Watching the Celtics from 2008-now has been much more enjoyable then watching the Celtics of 2002-04.
I would rather watch my team competing for a title then a certain player who I liked regardless of legacy.
So yeah I would trade watching the last 2 years of KG and Pierce if it meant in 2-3 years I got to watch my Celtics play in late May and June for another 5-6 year run.
That's just me.
Oh yeah definitely, without question.
-
Hope matters.
-
You need to at least feel it is a possibility. That you can compete for one or your team will get a chance to play for one down the road. That is building towards a title.
Agree with this.
The banner is the goal. The Celtics have been fortunate enough as a franchise that the only thing that gets put in the rafters is a championship banner. That's the standard to which Celtics teams are held.
-
First off, TP for a great post.
I was having this same talk with my parents a week or two ago (they were angry that I get so worked up over Celtics game; i.e. shouting at TV, sulking after losses, spending too much time on CelticsBlog. ;D). They told me it was just a game, and that sports was mere entertainment.
I come from a family that isn't so much into sports. My uncle is the only true basketball fan in my family (He's a Laker fan; I'm from Pasadena), and when I first became a fan of the Celtics, we were the underdog, so I was immediately drawn towards them. The first game I saw was when Pierce hit the buzzer beater vs the Heat in the 2010 playoffs, and I watched as we lost to the Lakers. This defeat made me think, "Well, they made it to the Finals, I guess they are contenders." And for the most part, they have been.
2011 we were great until Shaq went down and Perk got traded, then last year we became true contenders in the playoffs, and even this year before Rondo blew out his knee I felt we had a puncher's chance. Every year, I've expected us to be there at the end.
And why shouldn't Celtics fans feel this way? After all, we have the most titles in NBA history, don't we?
The more I watched the team, though, the more I became connected to the players, especially KG. His intensity was a characteristic of Celtic Pride, as is Pierce's heart and determination, and even Rondo's uniqueness and silent arrogance could be seen as the values of a true Celtic. The players that have played here during this era have treated us to competitive, hard-nosed basketball, and while it may not always be pretty, they always seemed to respond to criticism.
That's what I'll remember about this team: resilience. Win or lose, when the Celtics walked off the floor of a big game, I'm sure as hell I can say, "Those guys went down swinging."
If/when KG and Pierce are traded/retire, I'll shed a tear. This era has truly been a blessing, and even though these guys only have one championship to show for it, they gave me a million more memories that I'll never forget.
-
However, most of the "trade KG / Pierce" fans are doing it because they feel like a season without a title is a failure.
I can't speak for others, but my feeling on trading KG and Pierce is not that simple. This era has only produced one title, yet I'd only say the team "failed" if I felt like they didn't leave everything on the floor, if it seemed to me they fell short of their potential.
I loved last season's team, and I feel great about how it all ended up. The 2010 team redeemed itself in that sense, too. 2009 was bittersweet, but it wasn't a failure. I felt the 2011 team never got to play their best basketball in the playoffs, but that wasn't entirely in their hands either.
The thing about this season's team isn't just that they don't have a real shot at a championship. It's that they're, at best, a slightly above average team that isn't going to get any better in the near future. Maintaining the status quo is fine if you're talking about a 50+ win team that can be competitive in the playoffs each year. A team that will work hard to finish just above .500 and might not win a playoff series? Much harder to justify.
How many fans of losing franchises would kill to have the chance to watch KG play every night? How many fans of other franchises would love to cheer on the second and fourth leading scorers among active players?
I don't doubt that fans of hapless, poorly managed franchises would jump at the chance to watch established, competent players for once. I'm not so starved for decent play. I've enjoyed these guys the past 5 years. But the product on the floor is only going to get worse.
Those great moments from Pierce and KG are coming less and less often. More often than not we instead watch them struggle to keep up with younger, more athletic but less skilled, less experienced, less distinguished players.
I know I'm not in the majority on this, but I'd prefer to see KG and Pierce go elsewhere and do what they still have more than enough talent to do at a high level: be supporting players on a championship contender. Their days of being the headliners of a great team may be over, but they can still make great plays. Their careers might actually last longer and end on a brighter note if they aren't weighed down with the responsibility of carrying a team each night.
There's a lot of criticism that fans who root with their hearts or with sentimentality are somehow missing the bigger picture. I don't think so. Watching the Captain hit a dagger against the Clippers or watching KG make a huge defensive play are always going to be enjoyable experiences, and there's nothing at all wrong with those fans who want to enjoy another season or two of that before we move on to the next phase. To many fans, it's infinitely more enjoyable to watch KG bleed green than it is to root for the next Gerald Green.
I don't begrudge anybody for feeling that way. Reasonable people can disagree on this, because largely it is a matter of the heart -- it defies logic. As Jeff has said many times on the front page: head says "Hmm" heart says "NOOOO!".
Personally, what has thrilled me most in recent seasons is watching the emergence of players like Avery Bradley and Jared Sullinger, along with the captivating playoff domination of Rajon Rondo (though in the regular season he still drives me nuts). I'm excited to see what the next core of Celtics stars will look like, and I hope it's a group we can cheer on for many successful, fulfilling seasons (whether they result in championships or not).
I just think we're watching the sunset of this era. Sunsets are beautiful. But I'm ready for the sunrise -- even if it means we have to wait through a season or two of night.
-
I'd rather be competitive for 10 years and win 1 championship during that time than be awful in 5 but win the next year.
-
You need to at least feel it is a possibility. That you can compete for one or your team will get a chance to play for one down the road. That is building towards a title.
I agree with this, with one exception: if the team has been terrible for a long time (e.g. 4-5 seasons) and the organization has been in disarray, then I'd start to feel like just having a reasonably competitive season that ended in a trip to the playoffs would be worthwhile, even if the team made a few "win-now" moves at the expense of potential to do it.
For example, if I were a fan of the Kings or the Wizards, I'd be okay with trading young guys just to put together a decent, watchable team for a season or three. It's important, I think, not to get stuck in a recurring cycle of losing. There's long-term value in breaking out of that.
That thinking is what affects my willingness to blow up the Celtics -- it's not always wrong to want to keep a playoff-caliber team together just for the sake of making the playoffs despite the fact that you have no realistic shot at a championship.
But when the team has been a contender or fringe contender for 5 straight years, I don't feel a desperate need to win 40 or so games just for the sake of it. I can deal with this team being in the lottery for a few years if it means we can get closer to being a 60 win team sooner.
For me, I look at the flip side of this. When you've been a contender or "fringe contender" for five straight years, I want to milk that out for as much as I can possibly get out of the team. If I think we can at least be a fringe contender again (which I do), then it's six straight years of being in contention. In the grand scheme of things, yes, it's only one title (two would be almost miraculous--but I won't say impossible--at this point), but it's a team that's battled to stay near the top for an extended period of time. To me that's impressive, not as impressive as championships, but something to take pride in as a fan. Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, that beats five or six years or more of "just wait until next year."
-
You need to at least feel it is a possibility. That you can compete for one or your team will get a chance to play for one down the road. That is building towards a title.
I agree with this, with one exception: if the team has been terrible for a long time (e.g. 4-5 seasons) and the organization has been in disarray, then I'd start to feel like just having a reasonably competitive season that ended in a trip to the playoffs would be worthwhile, even if the team made a few "win-now" moves at the expense of potential to do it.
For example, if I were a fan of the Kings or the Wizards, I'd be okay with trading young guys just to put together a decent, watchable team for a season or three. It's important, I think, not to get stuck in a recurring cycle of losing. There's long-term value in breaking out of that.
That thinking is what affects my willingness to blow up the Celtics -- it's not always wrong to want to keep a playoff-caliber team together just for the sake of making the playoffs despite the fact that you have no realistic shot at a championship.
But when the team has been a contender or fringe contender for 5 straight years, I don't feel a desperate need to win 40 or so games just for the sake of it. I can deal with this team being in the lottery for a few years if it means we can get closer to being a 60 win team sooner.
For me, I look at the flip side of this. When you've been a contender or "fringe contender" for five straight years, I want to milk that out for as much as I can possibly get out of the team.
And I think that's a valid point of view, just not one that I share.
-
Yes absolutely 100% without question.
I have posted my fan mantra on the site before, but here it is again.
If your team is not a realistic championship contender or is not a young team with pieces that could become a realistic contender, then the team needs to be taking active and real steps to do one of the two things otherwise they are just wasting time and delaying the inevitable.
This Celtics team is neither of those things so I will be angry if no moves (in either direction) are made. That is why I was such a big fan of the Ray Allen trade, before the Kevin Garnett trade, as it sent a real purpose and direction to the team and I knew another move was imminent. It is also why I was so disappointed with this past summer. Boston made a lot of moves but none really put the team closer to a title and Boston lost all long term flexibility. I would have much rather been a team like Dallas this year giving it a go one last time, but without giving up the cap flexibility going forward. You don't sign Jeff Green, Brandon Bass, Jason Terry, and Courtney Lee to 3 or 4 year contracts for big money to a team that is very old and not all that close to a title. Those signings would have been ok, if KG and PP were 5 years younger, but not last summer.
Ainge absolutely needs to take the steps to clear off the flotsam and get back the flexibility and either blow it up or make real moves that put the team closer to a title. 1 or the other, but sitting back and doing nothing, just prolongs the time period in which the Celtics will not win a title and that is just bad. The goal is to win a title, not to barely make the playoffs and lose in the first round.
-
Also id rather be known as a championship or bust team than a team that is just satisfied making the playoffs every year.
-
First off, TP for a great post.
I was having this same talk with my parents a week or two ago (they were angry that I get so worked up over Celtics game; i.e. shouting at TV, sulking after losses, spending too much time on CelticsBlog. ;D). They told me it was just a game, and that sports was mere entertainment.
I come from a family that isn't so much into sports. My uncle is the only true basketball fan in my family (He's a Laker fan; I'm from Pasadena), and when I first became a fan of the Celtics, we were the underdog, so I was immediately drawn towards them. The first game I saw was when Pierce hit the buzzer beater vs the Heat in the 2010 playoffs, and I watched as we lost to the Lakers. This defeat made me think, "Well, they made it to the Finals, I guess they are contenders." And for the most part, they have been.
2011 we were great until Shaq went down and Perk got traded, then last year we became true contenders in the playoffs, and even this year before Rondo blew out his knee I felt we had a puncher's chance. Every year, I've expected us to be there at the end.
And why shouldn't Celtics fans feel this way? After all, we have the most titles in NBA history, don't we?
The more I watched the team, though, the more I became connected to the players, especially KG. His intensity was a characteristic of Celtic Pride, as is Pierce's heart and determination, and even Rondo's uniqueness and silent arrogance could be seen as the values of a true Celtic. The players that have played here during this era have treated us to competitive, hard-nosed basketball, and while it may not always be pretty, they always seemed to respond to criticism.
That's what I'll remember about this team: resilience. Win or lose, when the Celtics walked off the floor of a big game, I'm sure as hell I can say, "Those guys went down swinging."
If/when KG and Pierce are traded/retire, I'll shed a tear. This era has truly been a blessing, and even though these guys only have one championship to show for it, they gave me a million more memories that I'll never forget.
This is my favorite post in a really long time. It's great to hear from a young Celtics fan who didn't live through all the "glory years" of Russell, Cousy, Havlicheck, Bird, etc, but sees the same qualities in this current team that can be nicely summed up by the term "Celtic Pride."
If these guys must go down, I absolutely expect them to go down swinging.
TP.
-
I think I'd rather watch KG lose Game 7 than watch Ron Artest hoist the championship trophy while wearing Celtic green.
-
I think I'd rather watch KG lose Game 7 than watch Ron Artest hoist the championship trophy while wearing Celtic green.
This is just silly......you'd rather watch your team lose in heartbreaking fashion than win a championship with artest on our team? Really silly line of thinking there.
-
I think I'd rather watch KG lose Game 7 than watch Ron Artest hoist the championship trophy while wearing Celtic green.
This is just silly......you'd rather watch your team lose in heartbreaking fashion than win a championship with artest on our team? Really silly line of thinking there.
Call me silly, then. I think I would.
I don't root for the laundry. I root for the players, especially the ones that instill me with pride. I'd hate it if Ron Artest were traded to the Celtics. Would absolutely hate it.
-
I think I'd rather watch KG lose Game 7 than watch Ron Artest hoist the championship trophy while wearing Celtic green.
This is just silly......you'd rather watch your team lose in heartbreaking fashion than win a championship with artest on our team? Really silly line of thinking there.
Call me silly, then. I think I would.
I don't root for the laundry. I root for the players, especially the ones that instill me with pride. I'd hate it if Ron Artest were traded to the Celtics. Would absolutely hate it.
why? Artest isn't a rapist, murderer, etc. he is a guy with very real mental issues, that has done a lot of good for the mental health community. He is also the ultimate competitor.
-
I think I'd rather watch KG lose Game 7 than watch Ron Artest hoist the championship trophy while wearing Celtic green.
This is just silly......you'd rather watch your team lose in heartbreaking fashion than win a championship with artest on our team? Really silly line of thinking there.
Call me silly, then. I think I would.
I don't root for the laundry. I root for the players, especially the ones that instill me with pride. I'd hate it if Ron Artest were traded to the Celtics. Would absolutely hate it.
You have it backwards. So if you don't like the players on the team you're no longer a celtics fan? I root for whoever wears that celtic jersey. I root for players but nobody is more important than the team. Nobody is more important than the boston celtics.
-
I think I'd rather watch KG lose Game 7 than watch Ron Artest hoist the championship trophy while wearing Celtic green.
This is just silly......you'd rather watch your team lose in heartbreaking fashion than win a championship with artest on our team? Really silly line of thinking there.
Call me silly, then. I think I would.
I don't root for the laundry. I root for the players, especially the ones that instill me with pride. I'd hate it if Ron Artest were traded to the Celtics. Would absolutely hate it.
why? Artest isn't a rapist, murderer, etc. he is a guy with very real mental issues, that has done a lot of good for the mental health community. He is also the ultimate competitor.
I don't view him in that way. I think he's a dirty player.
Since you brought up the "r" word, I'd feel the same way if Kobe Bryant were traded to Boston.
-
I think I'd rather watch KG lose Game 7 than watch Ron Artest hoist the championship trophy while wearing Celtic green.
This is just silly......you'd rather watch your team lose in heartbreaking fashion than win a championship with artest on our team? Really silly line of thinking there.
Call me silly, then. I think I would.
I don't root for the laundry. I root for the players, especially the ones that instill me with pride. I'd hate it if Ron Artest were traded to the Celtics. Would absolutely hate it.
You have it backwards. So if you don't like the players on the team you're no longer a celtics fan? I root for whoever wears that celtic jersey. I root for players but nobody is more important than the team. Nobody is more important than the boston celtics.
I've never experienced the existential dilemma of seeing a player I absolutely hated playing for my favorite team.
But yes, if I felt the roster of the Boston Celtics no longer represented anything redeeming, honorable, or otherwise good, I wouldn't root for them.
Would you root for the Celtics if they somehow were a collection of PED-using thugs who engaged in criminal behavior during the offseason?
-
I think I'd rather watch KG lose Game 7 than watch Ron Artest hoist the championship trophy while wearing Celtic green.
This is just silly......you'd rather watch your team lose in heartbreaking fashion than win a championship with artest on our team? Really silly line of thinking there.
Call me silly, then. I think I would.
I don't root for the laundry. I root for the players, especially the ones that instill me with pride. I'd hate it if Ron Artest were traded to the Celtics. Would absolutely hate it.
You have it backwards. So if you don't like the players on the team you're no longer a celtics fan? I root for whoever wears that celtic jersey. I root for players but nobody is more important than the team. Nobody is more important than the boston celtics.
I've never experienced the existential dilemma of seeing a player I absolutely hated playing for my favorite team.
But yes, if I felt the roster of the Boston Celtics no longer represented anything redeeming, honorable, or otherwise good, I wouldn't root for them.
Would you root for the Celtics if they somehow were a collection of PED-using thugs who engaged in criminal behavior during the offseason?
There's always a player or two on the team i don't like or could do without. That being said no matter what I will always root for the celtics to win.
-
I think I'd rather watch KG lose Game 7 than watch Ron Artest hoist the championship trophy while wearing Celtic green.
This is just silly......you'd rather watch your team lose in heartbreaking fashion than win a championship with artest on our team? Really silly line of thinking there.
Call me silly, then. I think I would.
I don't root for the laundry. I root for the players, especially the ones that instill me with pride. I'd hate it if Ron Artest were traded to the Celtics. Would absolutely hate it.
You have it backwards. So if you don't like the players on the team you're no longer a celtics fan? I root for whoever wears that celtic jersey. I root for players but nobody is more important than the team. Nobody is more important than the boston celtics.
I've never experienced the existential dilemma of seeing a player I absolutely hated playing for my favorite team.
But yes, if I felt the roster of the Boston Celtics no longer represented anything redeeming, honorable, or otherwise good, I wouldn't root for them.
Would you root for the Celtics if they somehow were a collection of PED-using thugs who engaged in criminal behavior during the offseason?
I basically feel the same way you do. If I hated the players on the team, I wouldn't watch the team until those players were gone. There are very few players I feel that way about -- Kobe being #1 -- but I see nothing wrong with wanting to enjoy rooting for your team, and respecting the guys on it.
-
Fantastic post Roy!
I became a Celtics fan because of KG so that's like 6 years and i guess many of you are long time Celtics fans. I love KG and i'm happy that he won a title but i rather see KG play out his contract in green than look for a title in Clippers or some else, also i never doubt in him and his loyalty.
Having said this you may think that i'm sentimental and i would rather see KG and PP struggle than rebuild but you are wrong. Until KG is on this team, i don't care how old he is, this team will be in the mix. KG's value is underrated, i've seen many posts when some people on celticsblog don't realize how important KG is. Beyond stats KG's value is to big but still i agree with DA if a good offer is on the table take it but we are in no hurry for a rebuild because KG is here healty and we will go deep in the playoff and KG will give 200%.
Many Celtics fans are tired of this team that they watch for 6 years and look for something new, some guys like players like Gerald Green who can jump and dunk and be attractive but being attractive and being winner is diffrent. If teams offer lottery picks for KG or PP okey rebuild 2 lottery picks is great but a rebuild with Bledsoe,Butler? please, i would rather watch KG play with heart every night than watch attractive team with a lot of dunks but without a soul and identity. So if i can suggest playout this season with this team, maybe some minor trade for a big and see what happens, than in the summer DA should seat with KG and PP before 01.07 and see what they say.
Rondo is unique and great player but is he a franchise player? not sure. After KG the only thing i'm worried is losing this team identity, heart and soul. That is the thing that separates good teams and contenders. Rebuild is dangerous path, Celtics fans know that really good. Even if we take good young players we don't know if they will be just good or some of them will be a leader, will replace KG. If DA just collects pieces of good young players that mean he will trade all those for a proven leader. Most importing part of a rebuild is finding that player that leader who will be the soul and heart of the team and unless we have that kind of player and we don't ,than we are going to suck. My point is enjoy every ride with KG and this team because you never know when the next time you will expirience this, the truth is if KG is gone i don't know when we will be contenders next. In 2,5,7 years?
-
The few players i can't stand in this league have alot to do with the jerseys they are wearing. I can't stand lebron but if he was on the celtics helping us win id love him. There's not enough players in the league that i hate that would drive me to turn on my celtics if they were on our team........
-
Yes, and this is a Celtics-specific thing. As an organization, championships are the only thing that matters to the Boston Celtics, who don't hang divisional or conference titles from the rafters.
It's Red and Russell's legacy, and I'm happy to honor it.
That said, I don't see a deal involving KG and (probably) Pierce that gets the organization closer to a title - would rather keep them around to guide the next generation of Celtics.
-
For me? No - Championships are not all that matter.
They are nice, of course...and they give us fans bragging rights.
But just as an example - that memorable 2009-10 season...Rajon Rondo raising his game to another level vs LeBron and CLE...Ray Ray's 32 point game vs the Lakers in LA - Game 2 09-10 Finals...this play from Rondo vs the Magic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32MjBkENi3M
The final result wasn't what we wanted...seeing KG limping on one leg..seeing Perk go down...seeing Sheed battle valiantly...all in that series vs LA.
But boy the memories are sweet!
For me, championships are NOT all that matter.
-
I'll just throw this little fact out there that puts this into some perspective. Since 1980 only 9 organizations have won the NBA championship and we have 4 of them. So I think a lot of fans out there have to be happy with not winning it all. We have nothing to complain about.
-
I pretty much value teams that I enjoy rooting for.
Hard working teams that get the most out their talent and potential....
Championships are really tough to win. Everything has to almost all fall into place and they have to fall into place at the right time.
-
The team is just who we associate ourselves with and who we follow for a passion!
-
No, they're not. The bad thing about championships is you're never sure you're getting one until shortly before you do, and then the season's over and it's on to the next one.
It's the journey, not the destination. Banners are the finish line but how we get there, how we watch players develop and mesh and excel, is the important thing. Plus, basketball is the greatest game on Earth imo, and the C's usually play it pretty well.
-
For the most part I think so, but that is a very tough question to answer. I guess I ultimately am unless the player does a Hometown discount.
I think for certain organizations this is true. And thus it will be of its fans.
Patriots are definitely that way. In a way I beliece they are the most cold blooded team in sports and that isn't bad. I mean it along of the lines of there is no sentimental attachments with them.
They wouldn't hesitate to Tom Brady if someone offered them the RG3 trade package. Kraft already said he wants to keep Brady arounds as long as possible "as long as he is productive". Guys like Seymour, etc. have been moved for packages that NE thought would help them win more titles in the future.
The Dallas Cowboys are like this. So are the Lakers and Yankees. LA shipped out Shaq after he really was the prime guy to revitalize the organization. Gasol and Odom were as good as gone one year after helping them win two titles. Fisher was dumped in Houston.
Some teams are more sentimental then others. Spurs for example are. Dallas with Dirk is.
I'm not really sure where Boston is in that regard. I tend to think the Celtics would be somewhere in between where the Patriots are and where the Spurs are.
roflmbo at cowboys remark.
-
I think I'd rather watch KG lose Game 7 than watch Ron Artest hoist the championship trophy while wearing Celtic green.
This is just silly......you'd rather watch your team lose in heartbreaking fashion than win a championship with artest on our team? Really silly line of thinking there.
Call me silly, then. I think I would.
I don't root for the laundry. I root for the players, especially the ones that instill me with pride. I'd hate it if Ron Artest were traded to the Celtics. Would absolutely hate it.
You have it backwards. So if you don't like the players on the team you're no longer a celtics fan? I root for whoever wears that celtic jersey. I root for players but nobody is more important than the team. Nobody is more important than the boston celtics.
I've never experienced the existential dilemma of seeing a player I absolutely hated playing for my favorite team.
But yes, if I felt the roster of the Boston Celtics no longer represented anything redeeming, honorable, or otherwise good, I wouldn't root for them.
Would you root for the Celtics if they somehow were a collection of PED-using thugs who engaged in criminal behavior during the offseason?
Kevin Garnett is probably the dirtiest player in basketball and says some of the most reprehensible things on the court. He isn't very likeable and never has been. yet I root for him like I would any Celtic.
As a fan you root for the front of the jersey not the name on the back.
-
No, they're not. The bad thing about championships is you're never sure you're getting one until shortly before you do, and then the season's over and it's on to the next one.
It's the journey, not the destination. Banners are the finish line but how we get there, how we watch players develop and mesh and excel, is the important thing. Plus, basketball is the greatest game on Earth imo, and the C's usually play it pretty well.
What good is the journey if you don't reach the destination? Sounds like a waste of time to me.
-
I think I'd rather watch KG lose Game 7 than watch Ron Artest hoist the championship trophy while wearing Celtic green.
This is just silly......you'd rather watch your team lose in heartbreaking fashion than win a championship with artest on our team? Really silly line of thinking there.
Call me silly, then. I think I would.
I don't root for the laundry. I root for the players, especially the ones that instill me with pride. I'd hate it if Ron Artest were traded to the Celtics. Would absolutely hate it.
You have it backwards. So if you don't like the players on the team you're no longer a celtics fan? I root for whoever wears that celtic jersey. I root for players but nobody is more important than the team. Nobody is more important than the boston celtics.
I've never experienced the existential dilemma of seeing a player I absolutely hated playing for my favorite team.
But yes, if I felt the roster of the Boston Celtics no longer represented anything redeeming, honorable, or otherwise good, I wouldn't root for them.
Would you root for the Celtics if they somehow were a collection of PED-using thugs who engaged in criminal behavior during the offseason?
Kevin Garnett is probably the dirtiest player in basketball and says some of the most reprehensible things on the court. He isn't very likeable and never has been. yet I root for him like I would any Celtic.
As a fan you root for the front of the jersey not the name on the back.
Yeah, somehow I don't equate a dirty mouth and sharp elbows with outright punching a smaller player (Brandon Knight).
You're probably right, I'm biased because I'm a Celtic fan.
-
I don't think I have any singular approach to how I root for a team, or, what is most important. It depends on the situation.
Championships are inportant, but not at the expense of discarding thos who got you there previously like yesterday's trash. Guys like Antoine, who never truly won anything here, I can deal with moving on from.
I don't need my teams to win the title every year. I do need them to care, be enjoyable to watch, and prefer them to be competetive (or making progress towards it). Sometimes those desires run in oppostion to loyalty, in which case, as I said above, depends on the players and how worthy of my loyalty I find them to be.
-
No, they're not. The bad thing about championships is you're never sure you're getting one until shortly before you do, and then the season's over and it's on to the next one.
It's the journey, not the destination. Banners are the finish line but how we get there, how we watch players develop and mesh and excel, is the important thing. Plus, basketball is the greatest game on Earth imo, and the C's usually play it pretty well.
What good is the journey if you don't reach the destination? Sounds like a waste of time to me.
Not sure if this is tongue in cheek or not, but sports are 100% a waste of time, unless you make your living from it or something. If you don't enjoy the sport for its own sake, I can't see how a bunch of guys you don't know hanging a big piece of cloth with a number on it can have any value.
-
It's obviously big.
But I think the fact that I am more proud of last years Celtics team, that lost in the ECF, than of any team I've ever watched, says that it's not everything.
-
I think I'd rather watch KG lose Game 7 than watch Ron Artest hoist the championship trophy while wearing Celtic green.
This is just silly......you'd rather watch your team lose in heartbreaking fashion than win a championship with artest on our team? Really silly line of thinking there.
Call me silly, then. I think I would.
I don't root for the laundry. I root for the players, especially the ones that instill me with pride. I'd hate it if Ron Artest were traded to the Celtics. Would absolutely hate it.
You have it backwards. So if you don't like the players on the team you're no longer a celtics fan? I root for whoever wears that celtic jersey. I root for players but nobody is more important than the team. Nobody is more important than the boston celtics.
I've never experienced the existential dilemma of seeing a player I absolutely hated playing for my favorite team.
But yes, if I felt the roster of the Boston Celtics no longer represented anything redeeming, honorable, or otherwise good, I wouldn't root for them.
Would you root for the Celtics if they somehow were a collection of PED-using thugs who engaged in criminal behavior during the offseason?
Kevin Garnett is probably the dirtiest player in basketball and says some of the most reprehensible things on the court. He isn't very likeable and never has been. yet I root for him like I would any Celtic.
As a fan you root for the front of the jersey not the name on the back.
Yeah, somehow I don't equate a dirty mouth and sharp elbows with outright punching a smaller player (Brandon Knight).
You're probably right, I'm biased because I'm a Celtic fan.
I love kg as much as the next but hmm he's famously known for things like idk intentionally whacking Channing Frye in the family jewels and delivering cheap shots to players, more deliberately smaller white players...so yeah you're not objective
-
Hmmmm. How do I put this delicately? Yes championships are the only thing that matter. Maybe out there somewhere in Losertown they like watching loser players and loser franchises, but I'm a New England fan and I absolutely don't. I have to think a franchise and players are at least aspiring to being a championship team. That's why I would never have been a Clippers fan if I had lived in LA. Your players and whatnot have to at least put some fear into the other team. That's why Boston wasn't supporting the Bruins for a long time and stopped supporting Pitino. It was clear he didn't have the ability to win. Then he had the gall to try to tell us no good players would be walking through the door while being paid as coach and GM. Go to Loserville Kentucky. This is New England. We don't tolerate mediocrity here. Yes the last 12ish years have been really good to us. I'd say it's akin to dating kinda ok looking girls, then suddenly girls are kinda coming after you and you start dating Euro models. You can go for the personality. I ain't going back. Loser.
And if Boston goes to war with New York some day I'm not going to play for second place then either.
-
No, they're not. The bad thing about championships is you're never sure you're getting one until shortly before you do, and then the season's over and it's on to the next one.
It's the journey, not the destination. Banners are the finish line but how we get there, how we watch players develop and mesh and excel, is the important thing. Plus, basketball is the greatest game on Earth imo, and the C's usually play it pretty well.
What good is the journey if you don't reach the destination? Sounds like a waste of time to me.
Not sure if this is tongue in cheek or not, but sports are 100% a waste of time, unless you make your living from it or something. If you don't enjoy the sport for its own sake, I can't see how a bunch of guys you don't know hanging a big piece of cloth with a number on it can have any value.
And yet here we are..
-
I think I'd rather watch KG lose Game 7 than watch Ron Artest hoist the championship trophy while wearing Celtic green.
Well yeah. You don't sell your soul. That's totally different
-
It takes alot for me to call a season that isn't ended with a championship a success. Not sure I've ever done it before. I jump on pats fans that try to tell me this season was a success and i should be proud. Are you kidding me?
I should be proud of our explosive offense once again disappearing in the playoffs? I should be proud of the "GOAT" tom brady once again having a terrible game when it matters most? You can be proud, I'm not. That being said i can't wait until next season and i still love my team. Oh wait, we were talking about the celtics weren't we? lol.
-
Hmmmm. How do I put this delicately? Yes championships are the only thing that matter. Maybe out there somewhere in Losertown they like watching loser players and loser franchises, but I'm a New England fan and I absolutely don't. I have to think a franchise and players are at least aspiring to being a championship team. That's why I would never have been a Clippers fan if I had lived in LA. Your players and whatnot have to at least put some fear into the other team. That's why Boston wasn't supporting the Bruins for a long time and stopped supporting Pitino. It was clear he didn't have the ability to win. Then he had the gall to try to tell us no good players would be walking through the door while being paid as coach and GM. Go to Loserville Kentucky. This is New England. We don't tolerate mediocrity here. Yes the last 12ish years have been really good to us. I'd say it's akin to dating kinda ok looking girls, then suddenly girls are kinda coming after you and you start dating Euro models. You can go for the personality. I ain't going back. Loser.
And if Boston goes to war with New York some day I'm not going to play for second place then either.
Please speak only for yourself. You do not represent all of New England.
-
Hmmmm. How do I put this delicately? Yes championships are the only thing that matter. Maybe out there somewhere in Losertown they like watching loser players and loser franchises, but I'm a New England fan and I absolutely don't. I have to think a franchise and players are at least aspiring to being a championship team. That's why I would never have been a Clippers fan if I had lived in LA. Your players and whatnot have to at least put some fear into the other team. That's why Boston wasn't supporting the Bruins for a long time and stopped supporting Pitino. It was clear he didn't have the ability to win. Then he had the gall to try to tell us no good players would be walking through the door while being paid as coach and GM. Go to Loserville Kentucky. This is New England. We don't tolerate mediocrity here. Yes the last 12ish years have been really good to us. I'd say it's akin to dating kinda ok looking girls, then suddenly girls are kinda coming after you and you start dating Euro models. You can go for the personality. I ain't going back. Loser.
And if Boston goes to war with New York some day I'm not going to play for second place then either.
Is this a joke or are you completely unfamiliar with Kentucky basketball fans?
-
Hmmmm. How do I put this delicately? Yes championships are the only thing that matter. Maybe out there somewhere in Losertown they like watching loser players and loser franchises, but I'm a New England fan and I absolutely don't. I have to think a franchise and players are at least aspiring to being a championship team. That's why I would never have been a Clippers fan if I had lived in LA. Your players and whatnot have to at least put some fear into the other team. That's why Boston wasn't supporting the Bruins for a long time and stopped supporting Pitino. It was clear he didn't have the ability to win. Then he had the gall to try to tell us no good players would be walking through the door while being paid as coach and GM. Go to Loserville Kentucky. This is New England. We don't tolerate mediocrity here. Yes the last 12ish years have been really good to us. I'd say it's akin to dating kinda ok looking girls, then suddenly girls are kinda coming after you and you start dating Euro models. You can go for the personality. I ain't going back. Loser.
And if Boston goes to war with New York some day I'm not going to play for second place then either.
Please speak only for yourself. You do not represent all of New England.
So when I said "This is New England. We don't tolerate mediocrity" I guess I should have said. "This is New England. I don't tolerate mediocrity in my sports. KG's Knee isn't so sure".
Is that a little more accurate?
-
Hmmmm. How do I put this delicately? Yes championships are the only thing that matter. Maybe out there somewhere in Losertown they like watching loser players and loser franchises, but I'm a New England fan and I absolutely don't. I have to think a franchise and players are at least aspiring to being a championship team. That's why I would never have been a Clippers fan if I had lived in LA. Your players and whatnot have to at least put some fear into the other team. That's why Boston wasn't supporting the Bruins for a long time and stopped supporting Pitino. It was clear he didn't have the ability to win. Then he had the gall to try to tell us no good players would be walking through the door while being paid as coach and GM. Go to Loserville Kentucky. This is New England. We don't tolerate mediocrity here. Yes the last 12ish years have been really good to us. I'd say it's akin to dating kinda ok looking girls, then suddenly girls are kinda coming after you and you start dating Euro models. You can go for the personality. I ain't going back. Loser.
And if Boston goes to war with New York some day I'm not going to play for second place then either.
Is this a joke or are you completely unfamiliar with Kentucky basketball fans?
Were any of us born the last time Louisville won a championship? They're a good team. I said championships.
-
Eja, I'm guessing you must be a rather unhappy sports fan if your only satisfaction comes from winning titles.
You do realize, for all the success Boston teams have had over the years, they still "lose" far more often than they "win".
-
Hmmmm. How do I put this delicately? Yes championships are the only thing that matter. Maybe out there somewhere in Losertown they like watching loser players and loser franchises, but I'm a New England fan and I absolutely don't. I have to think a franchise and players are at least aspiring to being a championship team. That's why I would never have been a Clippers fan if I had lived in LA. Your players and whatnot have to at least put some fear into the other team. That's why Boston wasn't supporting the Bruins for a long time and stopped supporting Pitino. It was clear he didn't have the ability to win. Then he had the gall to try to tell us no good players would be walking through the door while being paid as coach and GM. Go to Loserville Kentucky. This is New England. We don't tolerate mediocrity here. Yes the last 12ish years have been really good to us. I'd say it's akin to dating kinda ok looking girls, then suddenly girls are kinda coming after you and you start dating Euro models. You can go for the personality. I ain't going back. Loser.
And if Boston goes to war with New York some day I'm not going to play for second place then either.
Is this a joke or are you completely unfamiliar with Kentucky basketball fans?
Were any of us born the last time Louisville won a championship? They're a good team. I said championships.
I thought you meant Kentucky, where he won a championship. And the fans there make the Celtics fan base look low-key and forgiving.
-
Hmmmm. How do I put this delicately? Yes championships are the only thing that matter. Maybe out there somewhere in Losertown they like watching loser players and loser franchises, but I'm a New England fan and I absolutely don't. I have to think a franchise and players are at least aspiring to being a championship team. That's why I would never have been a Clippers fan if I had lived in LA. Your players and whatnot have to at least put some fear into the other team. That's why Boston wasn't supporting the Bruins for a long time and stopped supporting Pitino. It was clear he didn't have the ability to win. Then he had the gall to try to tell us no good players would be walking through the door while being paid as coach and GM. Go to Loserville Kentucky. This is New England. We don't tolerate mediocrity here. Yes the last 12ish years have been really good to us. I'd say it's akin to dating kinda ok looking girls, then suddenly girls are kinda coming after you and you start dating Euro models. You can go for the personality. I ain't going back. Loser.
And if Boston goes to war with New York some day I'm not going to play for second place then either.
Sorry this decade has been so full of failure for you. It must have sucked, all those years without championships.
-
Great topic, TP to Roy for bringingi it up.
I love getting into certain players, and the journey is fun, and potentially also heartbreaking (Pats loss to Giants in 2008 Super bowl is still the most painful sports memory for me).
But the team matters more to me than certain players.
All that said, pro sports are just a form of entertainment. Some people get really into Disney; I get really into the Celtics. It is important not to lose sight of the fact that, at the end of the day, it is all just paid entertainment.
-
rings are icing on the cake
i love watching this team playball
im proud to say im a Boston Celtics Fan
-
rings are icing on the cake
i love watching this team playball
im proud to say im a Boston Celtics Fan
To me, this is exactly right. I want to see the team win titles, but if I was guaranteed that the team would never win a ring again in my lifetime, I'd still watch.
-
rings are icing on the cake
i love watching this team playball
im proud to say im a Boston Celtics Fan
Well put.
-
rings are icing on the cake
i love watching this team playball
im proud to say im a Boston Celtics Fan
this. well put. TP for you.
-
Hmmmm. How do I put this delicately? Yes championships are the only thing that matter. Maybe out there somewhere in Losertown they like watching loser players and loser franchises, but I'm a New England fan and I absolutely don't. I have to think a franchise and players are at least aspiring to being a championship team. That's why I would never have been a Clippers fan if I had lived in LA. Your players and whatnot have to at least put some fear into the other team. That's why Boston wasn't supporting the Bruins for a long time and stopped supporting Pitino. It was clear he didn't have the ability to win. Then he had the gall to try to tell us no good players would be walking through the door while being paid as coach and GM. Go to Loserville Kentucky. This is New England. We don't tolerate mediocrity here. Yes the last 12ish years have been really good to us. I'd say it's akin to dating kinda ok looking girls, then suddenly girls are kinda coming after you and you start dating Euro models. You can go for the personality. I ain't going back. Loser.
And if Boston goes to war with New York some day I'm not going to play for second place then either.
Sorry this decade has been so full of failure for you. It must have sucked, all those years without championships.
Of course they did. But hey, if you have lots of Celts calendars and posters you keep from the 90s or something, then as long as you're happy I guess.
-
Hmmmm. How do I put this delicately? Yes championships are the only thing that matter. Maybe out there somewhere in Losertown they like watching loser players and loser franchises, but I'm a New England fan and I absolutely don't. I have to think a franchise and players are at least aspiring to being a championship team. That's why I would never have been a Clippers fan if I had lived in LA. Your players and whatnot have to at least put some fear into the other team. That's why Boston wasn't supporting the Bruins for a long time and stopped supporting Pitino. It was clear he didn't have the ability to win. Then he had the gall to try to tell us no good players would be walking through the door while being paid as coach and GM. Go to Loserville Kentucky. This is New England. We don't tolerate mediocrity here. Yes the last 12ish years have been really good to us. I'd say it's akin to dating kinda ok looking girls, then suddenly girls are kinda coming after you and you start dating Euro models. You can go for the personality. I ain't going back. Loser.
And if Boston goes to war with New York some day I'm not going to play for second place then either.
Sorry this decade has been so full of failure for you. It must have sucked, all those years without championships.
Of course they did. But hey, if you have lots of Celts calendars and posters you keep from the 90s or something, then as long as you're happy I guess.
There were lots of good memories from the Celtics in the 90s, yeah. Even though the teams stunk, I enjoyed rooting for Dino Radja. That guy was a trip.
-
rings are icing on the cake
i love watching this team playball
im proud to say im a Boston Celtics Fan
To me, this is exactly right. I want to see the team win titles, but if I was guaranteed that the team would never win a ring again in my lifetime, I'd still watch.
Yeah, I wouldn't go that far. If I knew for a fact my favorite team was guaranteed to never win, I don't think I could possibly get too enthused.
-
rings are icing on the cake
i love watching this team playball
im proud to say im a Boston Celtics Fan
To me, this is exactly right. I want to see the team win titles, but if I was guaranteed that the team would never win a ring again in my lifetime, I'd still watch.
Yeah, I wouldn't go that far. If I knew for a fact my favorite team was guaranteed to never win, I don't think I could possibly get too enthused.
There's something to be said for seeing basketball played at an extremely high level, even if the team ultimately falls short.
There isn't a great example with the Celtics, because generally when the team has had great players they've won. Using a baseball example, though, I'd gladly re-live the 40s and 50s as a Red Sox fan. That's decades without a title, but the chance to watch Ted Williams every day. I think getting to witness that is special in its own right.
If this team had missed on a title in 2008, would we look back on the past five years and consider it a waste of time? Do people now feel that way about 2009 until the present? Or, do they look at the special opportunity we've had as fans to watch amazing basketball and to enjoy a lot of thrills along the way?
-
rings are icing on the cake
i love watching this team playball
im proud to say im a Boston Celtics Fan
To me, this is exactly right. I want to see the team win titles, but if I was guaranteed that the team would never win a ring again in my lifetime, I'd still watch.
Yeah, I wouldn't go that far. If I knew for a fact my favorite team was guaranteed to never win, I don't think I could possibly get too enthused.
There's something to be said for seeing basketball played at an extremely high level, even if the team ultimately falls short.
There isn't a great example with the Celtics, because generally when the team has had great players they've won. Using a baseball example, though, I'd gladly re-live the 40s and 50s as a Red Sox fan. That's decades without a title, but the chance to watch Ted Williams every day. I think getting to witness that is special in its own right.
If this team had missed on a title in 2008, would we look back on the past five years and consider it a waste of time? Do people now feel that way about 2009 until the present? Or, do they look at the special opportunity we've had as fans to watch amazing basketball and to enjoy a lot of thrills along the way?
It's all about the memories.
Heck, I've never watched a game live in my life and I'd say the Celtics changed my life after a short year and will, forever!
-
rings are icing on the cake
i love watching this team playball
im proud to say im a Boston Celtics Fan
To me, this is exactly right. I want to see the team win titles, but if I was guaranteed that the team would never win a ring again in my lifetime, I'd still watch.
Yeah, I wouldn't go that far. If I knew for a fact my favorite team was guaranteed to never win, I don't think I could possibly get too enthused.
There's something to be said for seeing basketball played at an extremely high level, even if the team ultimately falls short.
There isn't a great example with the Celtics, because generally when the team has had great players they've won. Using a baseball example, though, I'd gladly re-live the 40s and 50s as a Red Sox fan. That's decades without a title, but the chance to watch Ted Williams every day. I think getting to witness that is special in its own right.
If this team had missed on a title in 2008, would we look back on the past five years and consider it a waste of time? Do people now feel that way about 2009 until the present? Or, do they look at the special opportunity we've had as fans to watch amazing basketball and to enjoy a lot of thrills along the way?
I don't need any guarantee the team will win, but if there was a guarantee they wouldn't, that would be tough.
As to feeling as if I wasted my time when my team doesn't win, no I don't feel that at all. As long as there is at least some small level of hope, or hope of progress towards being competitive, I'm good.
Also, loyaly is important to me as well, it just varies depending on the specific players (as I said in an earlier post in the thread).
-
rings are icing on the cake
i love watching this team playball
im proud to say im a Boston Celtics Fan
To me, this is exactly right. I want to see the team win titles, but if I was guaranteed that the team would never win a ring again in my lifetime, I'd still watch.
Yeah, I wouldn't go that far. If I knew for a fact my favorite team was guaranteed to never win, I don't think I could possibly get too enthused.
There's something to be said for seeing basketball played at an extremely high level, even if the team ultimately falls short.
There isn't a great example with the Celtics, because generally when the team has had great players they've won. Using a baseball example, though, I'd gladly re-live the 40s and 50s as a Red Sox fan. That's decades without a title, but the chance to watch Ted Williams every day. I think getting to witness that is special in its own right.
If this team had missed on a title in 2008, would we look back on the past five years and consider it a waste of time? Do people now feel that way about 2009 until the present? Or, do they look at the special opportunity we've had as fans to watch amazing basketball and to enjoy a lot of thrills along the way?
I don't need any guarantee the team will win, but if there was a guarantee they wouldn't, that would be tough.
As to feeling as if I wasted my time when my team doesn't win, no I don't feel that at all. As long as there is at least some small level of hope, or hope of progress towards being competitive, I'm good.
Also, loyaly is important to me as well, it just varies depending on the specific players (as I said in an earlier post in the thread).
All teams must naturally have hope or their owners would be losing money and they would sell the team to someone else, who would actually make money... Which requires fan support and hope.
-
rings are icing on the cake
i love watching this team playball
im proud to say im a Boston Celtics Fan
To me, this is exactly right. I want to see the team win titles, but if I was guaranteed that the team would never win a ring again in my lifetime, I'd still watch.
Yeah, I wouldn't go that far. If I knew for a fact my favorite team was guaranteed to never win, I don't think I could possibly get too enthused.
There's something to be said for seeing basketball played at an extremely high level, even if the team ultimately falls short.
There isn't a great example with the Celtics, because generally when the team has had great players they've won. Using a baseball example, though, I'd gladly re-live the 40s and 50s as a Red Sox fan. That's decades without a title, but the chance to watch Ted Williams every day. I think getting to witness that is special in its own right.
If this team had missed on a title in 2008, would we look back on the past five years and consider it a waste of time? Do people now feel that way about 2009 until the present? Or, do they look at the special opportunity we've had as fans to watch amazing basketball and to enjoy a lot of thrills along the way?
I don't need any guarantee the team will win, but if there was a guarantee they wouldn't, that would be tough.
That's the way I feel about it too. In sports, whether you're a participant or a vested spectator, winning falls short of the joy of watching the game unfold (though it certainly beats losing).
-
Some of my most enduring memories about certain sports has nothing to do with winning a game or a championship.
I'll never forget where I was or what I was doing when Reggie Lewis died. It truly felt like I had lost a close friend. And the bitterness to think it might have been averted.
I'll never forget that All-Star game at Fenway in 1999 where they brought Ted Williams out and all the players went out there to meet Ted and talk baseball with him. From current superstars all the way to guys who have been members of the Hall of Fame, they stood there, talked to Williams, swapped pleasantries and stories and it was amazing to see the absolute best of several generations all standing there having "hero worship" for a true American hero.
I will never forget the absolute joy I had in coaching my sons during a year of sports at organized competition.
I remember when I was young and the year that my mother got me this Patriots Blue and Red Puff Ball topped Patriots winter cotton woven hat. Except the Patriots sucked and wearing Patriot's anything at school automatically made you a loser. Well, when it got cold I wore that hat and took my share of ribbing. By Christmas, everyone wanted the hat I had been wearing all along because the 1976 Patriots came out of nothing to within a play of beating the Super Bowl champ of that year, The Oakland Raiders.
I loved that hat. I think only my 2004 Red Sox hat I wore during the 2004 season had more times worn in my lifetime. Over a span of months I went from loser to fashion setter and Patriots fan; because I was 11 and poor and hated cold ears, so I wore the hat my mom bought me by mistake(I will not discuss who's hat I was asking for.)
So, to me, no championships aren't all that matter. Being a team fan or a sport fan means so much more. Like family and life and joy and hardship and youth and heroes and friends and so so much more.
-
There's something to be said for seeing basketball played at an extremely high level, even if the team ultimately falls short.
There isn't a great example with the Celtics, because generally when the team has had great players they've won. Using a baseball example, though, I'd gladly re-live the 40s and 50s as a Red Sox fan. That's decades without a title, but the chance to watch Ted Williams every day. I think getting to witness that is special in its own right.
If this team had missed on a title in 2008, would we look back on the past five years and consider it a waste of time? Do people now feel that way about 2009 until the present? Or, do they look at the special opportunity we've had as fans to watch amazing basketball and to enjoy a lot of thrills along the way?
I guess we ought to ask some Utah Jazz fans.
If you told me the next great Celtics star (or two) would lead the team on a run of 19 straight seasons over .500, 7 seasons with 55 or more wins, and two Finals appearances, but no championships, I'd be on board with that.
-
There's something to be said for seeing basketball played at an extremely high level, even if the team ultimately falls short.
There isn't a great example with the Celtics, because generally when the team has had great players they've won. Using a baseball example, though, I'd gladly re-live the 40s and 50s as a Red Sox fan. That's decades without a title, but the chance to watch Ted Williams every day. I think getting to witness that is special in its own right.
If this team had missed on a title in 2008, would we look back on the past five years and consider it a waste of time? Do people now feel that way about 2009 until the present? Or, do they look at the special opportunity we've had as fans to watch amazing basketball and to enjoy a lot of thrills along the way?
I guess we ought to ask some Utah Jazz fans.
My guess would be that most Jazz fans appreciate the Stockton / Malone years. My further guess is that if given the option to go back in time and trade Stockton in his final seasons for a mid-level first rounder, most of them would pass.
If you told me the next great Celtics star (or two) would lead the team on a run of 19 straight seasons over .500, 7 seasons with 55 or more wins, and two Finals appearances, but no championships, I'd be on board with that.
Yeah. So long as the Lakers don't pass us in titles along the way. ;)
-
There's something to be said for seeing basketball played at an extremely high level, even if the team ultimately falls short.
There isn't a great example with the Celtics, because generally when the team has had great players they've won. Using a baseball example, though, I'd gladly re-live the 40s and 50s as a Red Sox fan. That's decades without a title, but the chance to watch Ted Williams every day. I think getting to witness that is special in its own right.
If this team had missed on a title in 2008, would we look back on the past five years and consider it a waste of time? Do people now feel that way about 2009 until the present? Or, do they look at the special opportunity we've had as fans to watch amazing basketball and to enjoy a lot of thrills along the way?
I guess we ought to ask some Utah Jazz fans.
Nearly all. Same with us and Mr. 34
-
There's something to be said for seeing basketball played at an extremely high level, even if the team ultimately falls short.
There isn't a great example with the Celtics, because generally when the team has had great players they've won. Using a baseball example, though, I'd gladly re-live the 40s and 50s as a Red Sox fan. That's decades without a title, but the chance to watch Ted Williams every day. I think getting to witness that is special in its own right.
If this team had missed on a title in 2008, would we look back on the past five years and consider it a waste of time? Do people now feel that way about 2009 until the present? Or, do they look at the special opportunity we've had as fans to watch amazing basketball and to enjoy a lot of thrills along the way?
I guess we ought to ask some Utah Jazz fans.
My guess would be that most Jazz fans appreciate the Stockton / Malone years. My further guess is that if given the option to go back in time and trade Stockton in his final seasons for a mid-level first rounder, most of them would pass.
If you told me the next great Celtics star (or two) would lead the team on a run of 19 straight seasons over .500, 7 seasons with 55 or more wins, and two Finals appearances, but no championships, I'd be on board with that.
Yeah. So long as the Lakers don't pass us in titles along the way. ;)
Sounds to me like your thought process concerning whether or not winning championships is important or not is partially colored by the fact the Celtics not only have won championships already, but have won the most. Otherwise, if it wasn't important, why would you care whether or not the Lakers pass us?
-
There's something to be said for seeing basketball played at an extremely high level, even if the team ultimately falls short.
There isn't a great example with the Celtics, because generally when the team has had great players they've won. Using a baseball example, though, I'd gladly re-live the 40s and 50s as a Red Sox fan. That's decades without a title, but the chance to watch Ted Williams every day. I think getting to witness that is special in its own right.
If this team had missed on a title in 2008, would we look back on the past five years and consider it a waste of time? Do people now feel that way about 2009 until the present? Or, do they look at the special opportunity we've had as fans to watch amazing basketball and to enjoy a lot of thrills along the way?
I guess we ought to ask some Utah Jazz fans.
My guess would be that most Jazz fans appreciate the Stockton / Malone years. My further guess is that if given the option to go back in time and trade Stockton in his final seasons for a mid-level first rounder, most of them would pass.
If you told me the next great Celtics star (or two) would lead the team on a run of 19 straight seasons over .500, 7 seasons with 55 or more wins, and two Finals appearances, but no championships, I'd be on board with that.
Yeah. So long as the Lakers don't pass us in titles along the way. ;)
Sounds to me like your thought process concerning whether or not winning championships is important or not is partially colored by the fact the Celtics not only have won championships already, but have won the most. Otherwise, if it wasn't important, why would you care whether or not the Lakers pass us?
Did you see the little winkie face there? That implies it's a joke.
-
There's something to be said for seeing basketball played at an extremely high level, even if the team ultimately falls short.
There isn't a great example with the Celtics, because generally when the team has had great players they've won. Using a baseball example, though, I'd gladly re-live the 40s and 50s as a Red Sox fan. That's decades without a title, but the chance to watch Ted Williams every day. I think getting to witness that is special in its own right.
If this team had missed on a title in 2008, would we look back on the past five years and consider it a waste of time? Do people now feel that way about 2009 until the present? Or, do they look at the special opportunity we've had as fans to watch amazing basketball and to enjoy a lot of thrills along the way?
I guess we ought to ask some Utah Jazz fans.
My guess would be that most Jazz fans appreciate the Stockton / Malone years. My further guess is that if given the option to go back in time and trade Stockton in his final seasons for a mid-level first rounder, most of them would pass.
If you told me the next great Celtics star (or two) would lead the team on a run of 19 straight seasons over .500, 7 seasons with 55 or more wins, and two Finals appearances, but no championships, I'd be on board with that.
Yeah. So long as the Lakers don't pass us in titles along the way. ;)
Sounds to me like your thought process concerning whether or not winning championships is important or not is partially colored by the fact the Celtics not only have won championships already, but have won the most. Otherwise, if it wasn't important, why would you care whether or not the Lakers pass us?
Did you see the little winkie face there? That implies it's a joke.
Ok, that makes sense. Never been the best at deciphering internet humor.
I could swear I've seen you say before how much it would pain you to see the Lakers pass us for titles though. Must be mistaken.
-
I could swear I've seen you say before how much it would pain you to see the Lakers pass us for titles though. Must be mistaken.
While it wouldn't be ideal, it's not like it's keeping me up at night.
I've never said championships don't matter. Obviously, they're the ultimate goal in a season. However, there's a lot more to sports than rings.
-
Great topic, TP to Roy for bringingi it up.
I love getting into certain players, and the journey is fun, and potentially also heartbreaking (Pats loss to Giants in 2008 Super bowl is still the most painful sports memory for me).
But the team matters more to me than certain players.
All that said, pro sports are just a form of entertainment. Some people get really into Disney; I get really into the Celtics. It is important not to lose sight of the fact that, at the end of the day, it is all just paid entertainment.
By far my biggest heartbreak involving sports. I will NEVER get over that. I still can't believe it even to this day. I was a complete wreck after that game.
-
There's something to be said for seeing basketball played at an extremely high level, even if the team ultimately falls short.
There isn't a great example with the Celtics, because generally when the team has had great players they've won. Using a baseball example, though, I'd gladly re-live the 40s and 50s as a Red Sox fan. That's decades without a title, but the chance to watch Ted Williams every day. I think getting to witness that is special in its own right.
If this team had missed on a title in 2008, would we look back on the past five years and consider it a waste of time? Do people now feel that way about 2009 until the present? Or, do they look at the special opportunity we've had as fans to watch amazing basketball and to enjoy a lot of thrills along the way?
I guess we ought to ask some Utah Jazz fans.
If you told me the next great Celtics star (or two) would lead the team on a run of 19 straight seasons over .500, 7 seasons with 55 or more wins, and two Finals appearances, but no championships, I'd be on board with that.
Not me man lol. To each its own tho.
-
There's something to be said for seeing basketball played at an extremely high level, even if the team ultimately falls short.
There isn't a great example with the Celtics, because generally when the team has had great players they've won. Using a baseball example, though, I'd gladly re-live the 40s and 50s as a Red Sox fan. That's decades without a title, but the chance to watch Ted Williams every day. I think getting to witness that is special in its own right.
If this team had missed on a title in 2008, would we look back on the past five years and consider it a waste of time? Do people now feel that way about 2009 until the present? Or, do they look at the special opportunity we've had as fans to watch amazing basketball and to enjoy a lot of thrills along the way?
I guess we ought to ask some Utah Jazz fans.
My guess would be that most Jazz fans appreciate the Stockton / Malone years. My further guess is that if given the option to go back in time and trade Stockton in his final seasons for a mid-level first rounder, most of them would pass.
If you told me the next great Celtics star (or two) would lead the team on a run of 19 straight seasons over .500, 7 seasons with 55 or more wins, and two Finals appearances, but no championships, I'd be on board with that.
Yeah. So long as the Lakers don't pass us in titles along the way. ;)
Sounds to me like your thought process concerning whether or not winning championships is important or not is partially colored by the fact the Celtics not only have won championships already, but have won the most. Otherwise, if it wasn't important, why would you care whether or not the Lakers pass us?
I don't know man, I think LA winning 7 more titles would hurt all of us.
-
There's something to be said for seeing basketball played at an extremely high level, even if the team ultimately falls short.
There isn't a great example with the Celtics, because generally when the team has had great players they've won. Using a baseball example, though, I'd gladly re-live the 40s and 50s as a Red Sox fan. That's decades without a title, but the chance to watch Ted Williams every day. I think getting to witness that is special in its own right.
If this team had missed on a title in 2008, would we look back on the past five years and consider it a waste of time? Do people now feel that way about 2009 until the present? Or, do they look at the special opportunity we've had as fans to watch amazing basketball and to enjoy a lot of thrills along the way?
I guess we ought to ask some Utah Jazz fans.
If you told me the next great Celtics star (or two) would lead the team on a run of 19 straight seasons over .500, 7 seasons with 55 or more wins, and two Finals appearances, but no championships, I'd be on board with that.
Not me man lol. To each its own tho.
I guess I should add that a run like that would almost assuredly coincide with watching at least one if not two of the greatest 15-20 players ever doing great things pretty much night in and night out for the majority of two decades. That's pretty special.
-
There's something to be said for seeing basketball played at an extremely high level, even if the team ultimately falls short.
There isn't a great example with the Celtics, because generally when the team has had great players they've won. Using a baseball example, though, I'd gladly re-live the 40s and 50s as a Red Sox fan. That's decades without a title, but the chance to watch Ted Williams every day. I think getting to witness that is special in its own right.
If this team had missed on a title in 2008, would we look back on the past five years and consider it a waste of time? Do people now feel that way about 2009 until the present? Or, do they look at the special opportunity we've had as fans to watch amazing basketball and to enjoy a lot of thrills along the way?
I guess we ought to ask some Utah Jazz fans.
If you told me the next great Celtics star (or two) would lead the team on a run of 19 straight seasons over .500, 7 seasons with 55 or more wins, and two Finals appearances, but no championships, I'd be on board with that.
Not me man lol. To each its own tho.
I guess I should add that a run like that would almost assuredly coincide with watching at least one if not two of the greatest 15-20 players ever doing great things pretty much night in and night out for the majority of two decades. That's pretty special.
As a fan while it would be special it would never be 100 % fulfilling.
-
There's something to be said for seeing basketball played at an extremely high level, even if the team ultimately falls short.
There isn't a great example with the Celtics, because generally when the team has had great players they've won. Using a baseball example, though, I'd gladly re-live the 40s and 50s as a Red Sox fan. That's decades without a title, but the chance to watch Ted Williams every day. I think getting to witness that is special in its own right.
If this team had missed on a title in 2008, would we look back on the past five years and consider it a waste of time? Do people now feel that way about 2009 until the present? Or, do they look at the special opportunity we've had as fans to watch amazing basketball and to enjoy a lot of thrills along the way?
I guess we ought to ask some Utah Jazz fans.
If you told me the next great Celtics star (or two) would lead the team on a run of 19 straight seasons over .500, 7 seasons with 55 or more wins, and two Finals appearances, but no championships, I'd be on board with that.
Not me man lol. To each its own tho.
I guess I should add that a run like that would almost assuredly coincide with watching at least one if not two of the greatest 15-20 players ever doing great things pretty much night in and night out for the majority of two decades. That's pretty special.
As a fan while it would be special it would never be 100 % fulfilling.
No. The lack of a title would always be a bit of a bummer. But I guess my point is that very few teams ever have that kind of sustained success, let alone a championship. So if you could guarantee me nearly 20 years of success and amazing play while getting to lay claim to a couple of the greatest players ever, even if it meant not getting a title, I'd be pretty excited about that. At the very least you'd know the team was going to be really entertaining almost every night during that time frame. There's value in that.
It's overwhelmingly more likely that the next two decades after KG and Pierce are gone will be characterized by a lot of uncertainty and ups and downs as the team tries to find the next combination of stars and role players to be competitive again. There's a very good chance the Cs won't win another championship in the next 10-20 years. There's just so much luck involved in getting that franchise star who can take you there, and getting the guy at the right time (i.e. not when somebody like Jordan -- or perhaps LeBron / Durant -- is dominating the league).
Still, my recognition of that uncertainty doesn't change my desire to get started on that journey. Indeed, it's part of it. This era is known, and I'm pretty sure I know how it's going to end. The next chapter is a mystery.
-
Well, it certainly should be to the GM. Why else do we have one? But that wasn´t your question, right?
I think the answer, as always, is "it depends".
Generally, I think it´s disrespectful and undermines the integrity of the game to settle for mediocrity. Disrespectful to your opponents, to the officials, and to the history of the sport. There were players in this league who shed blood to win a title, and you´re certainly not above that.
Let me put it this way: Red wasn´t lighting up cigars for good effort. And little KG didn´t grow up and said "Momma, I´m going to become a professional basketball player, and I will play .500 ball for my entire career."
Now, if you´re a young team, and nobody can realistically expect you to win a championship, then of course I´m more forgiving, but I still expect you to give your best to win a title one day. If you´re a super talented rookie and all you look for is a quick paycheck and blonde women, I will be angry and certainly never root for you, precisely because you´re disrespecting the game.
I mean, what´s next? Allow PED´s, because they enhance the physical capabilities of players, and thus the spectacle?
I despise Lance Armstrong, and I don´t give a dang about the "incredible story" he´s selling us. All it does is leave me with a shallow feeling.
The art of basketball, and what Red taught all of us, is as much about winning, about your team vs my team, than it is about a perfect form in your shot or setting a pick. If you can´t oblige to that, I will forgive you. If you don´t care about it, get out of my sight and don´t you dare to ever come back.
On a related note, and maybe I shouldn´t bring that up, but I think most of you who say winning doesn´t matter on whether you root for a player or not are lying to yourself. Back when I organized the "25 greatest Celtics of all time" polls, we all collectively voted for KG before the likes of Ricky Davis, Dana Barros and Antoine Walker, even though he was only a Celtic for two years. The obvious reason for this is that winning does matter to us, and that it plays an integral part in who we consider to be "a real Celtic".
Finally, I want you to watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpAv_ao7rBs
Seriously, even if you´ve seen it before, watch the whole 10 minutes, and don´t skip the part about the Timberwolves.
If you´re a fan of Kevin Garnett, what exactly are you a fan of if not winning?
-
There's something to be said for seeing basketball played at an extremely high level, even if the team ultimately falls short.
There isn't a great example with the Celtics, because generally when the team has had great players they've won. Using a baseball example, though, I'd gladly re-live the 40s and 50s as a Red Sox fan. That's decades without a title, but the chance to watch Ted Williams every day. I think getting to witness that is special in its own right.
If this team had missed on a title in 2008, would we look back on the past five years and consider it a waste of time? Do people now feel that way about 2009 until the present? Or, do they look at the special opportunity we've had as fans to watch amazing basketball and to enjoy a lot of thrills along the way?
I guess we ought to ask some Utah Jazz fans.
My guess would be that most Jazz fans appreciate the Stockton / Malone years. My further guess is that if given the option to go back in time and trade Stockton in his final seasons for a mid-level first rounder, most of them would pass.
If they knew 100% that Utah would not win, I think most would in fact trade Stockton and/or Malone. At that time, however, Utah was a legit contender so it didn't make sense to trade either one.
-
When it comes to the Celtics, I'm in the Championship or Bust camp. I'm a giant KG fan, but if the team doesn't have a good chance of winning this year or next as presently constituted, and Ainge can't fortify the roster to make them more competitive, I would support a trade for assets.
Everyone talks about how DA was in favor of Red trading Bird and McHale at the end for Person, Schrempf and Sam Perkins. If Red made those moves, maybe the team doesn't plunge into a decade of despair. Red chose to trade a lesser asset, Ainge, to bring in two bigs to help fortify the Big 3 for another run, and it didn't work.
In the NBA, top of the league talent wins title. In almost every case, that kind of talent comes to a team through the draft, (with the three "ensemble" champions, the Mavs, Cs and Pistons, being the outliers) or unrestricted free agency, in LeBron and Shaq's cases.
Boston doesn't seem to be a place that can snag a top five player through free agency. The best chance for the Cs to rebuild into a championship team is to garner as many assets as possible, by using their most trade-able assets now. If that means winning only 36 games this year and missing the playoffs, instead of winning 44 games with KG and PP and being dispatched in 5 games by Miami in the first round of the playoffs, that's OK with me.
Maybe the ping pong balls finally go this team's way (the Cs can send the team doctor to the drawing). Maybe one of the acquired young assets, like a Bledsoe or a Harrison Barnes, becomes a breakout player.
A whole new generation of Celtics fans have tasted success. They're not going to want to see the team wallow in the middle ground for a decade or two like the last time the Cs brass chose not to trade off legendary pieces of a fast fading dynasty.
Also, I'd like to see Pierce and KG play for another title in their final years. I thought it would have been in Boston, but the gods have been quite unkind to this team regarding injuries ever since Pierce's miracle recovery out of the wheelchair in 2008. Pierce on Golden State, trying to push that team and their rabid (and deserving) fan base over the top, would be fun, and KG on my second team, the Clippers, would also be good. Getting the Clippers over the top, marginalizing the Lakers in LA, would be an added benefit for Celtics fans
-
Yes and no.
There's something to be said about getting behind a certain group of players and trying to win a championship with them.
-
If only championships matter, then every Olympian who didn't win a gold medal is a failure (or was robbed).
-
Great thread.
It's more about memories than championships for me. Championships make the best memories, but if we play hard and play good basketball, I'm good with that. When we got blown out in our last home game against the Heat and everyone was chanting "let's go Celtics" that was special. I think every fan wants to be a part of something, and being a fan of the Celtics is being a part of something big.
Legacy matters to me. Tommy has been drunk on the kool-aid for decades. Russell still pokes his head out every now and then to drop wisdom. Even when Bird was with the Pacers, everyone thought of him as a Celtic. It's because being a Celtic means something. I'd love for Paul and KG (and Rondo) to hang around after they retire, to be a part of the legacy.
Ray didn't want that. That's what the betrayal was to me. He just wanted what he though was a better shot at another ring. Loyalty is also why I wouldn't feel right trading our best players for guys because they're younger or different. I've seen Paul grow as a player and person. Every time he steps on the court it brings back memories. And every time he steps on the court, I know he's about winning a championship.
Championships are just validation, they're not what matters.
-
Note that only one team out of thirty can win a championship yet there are fans for every team in the league, even the perennial losers.
And that applies to absolutely every pro sports team ever.
-
I don't need championships, but I don't want to be a perrenial lottery team.
-
Yes, in the long run. I don't care if the Celtics win a championship in any given year, because it's not going to happen every year. What I do want is one of two things:
1) For the Celtics to be a reasonable contender (capable of going deep in the playoffs without luck on their side)
or
2) When they don't have a reasonable shot, to know that they are taking appropriate steps to get there in 1-3 seasons, depending on the situation.
All I want is something to hope on. In 2006-2007, it was that we would get Oden (oops!) or Durant (drats!) and that the young players would get better while losing. Obviously that's not how things turned out (albeit for the better) but I still found the season enjoyable seeing early flashes of Rondo, watching Gerald Green win the slam dunk competition, and imagining that Ryan Gomes had potential.
On the contrary, this year started out with hope, but I stopped enjoying the season during the recent six-game losing streak, when it was clear that Bradley's return was merely coincidental with and not causal of the prior winning streak. Rondo and Sully out for the year have made it worse, and I want to know that this team is taking the steps to return to championship contention, be it next year or in a few years with younger players. I won't mind if someone gets traded as long as we get back something that gives me hope. If Paul gets traded, for instance, I could rationalize it as long as we got back some good young players and picks. It would even give me a team to root for in the playoffs assuming that no Paul means no playoffs.
So yes, championships are the only thing that matter, but it counts if I feel I have reasonable hope to experience one again sometime soon.
-
This needs another bump.
Every thread there's someone with something negative to say about the current roster. Let me support my [dang] team and be happy when they win.
-
A championship is the end-goal, but it's definitely not the only thing that matters. I liken each season to a TV series, where the joy of the journey far outweighs how the final episode plays out. Its value is a culmination of everything, from characters to the funny bits to the dramatic plot twists.
Plus, it's all relative. Imagine if the C's were a young team, full of spare parts and outcasts, with no hopes of a championship. And then, they eliminate the Miami Heat in the first round. Even if they get eliminated in the 2nd round, the season would definitely still be regarded as heroic and memorable.
-
Tonight is a good example of why I say no. We're pretty unlikely to win a title this year, and the Lakers are even more unlikely. In the big scale of the league it didn't mean much. But this was a great game to watch, and made an otherwise ordinary Thursday really enjoyable. Can't tell me that's not worthwhile.
-
Tonight is a good example of why I say no. We're pretty unlikely to win a title this year, and the Lakers are even more unlikely. In the big scale of the league it didn't mean much. But this was a great game to watch, and made an otherwise ordinary Thursday really enjoyable. Can't tell me that's not worthwhile.
Sho nuff!
-
Tonight is a good example of why I say no. We're pretty unlikely to win a title this year, and the Lakers are even more unlikely. In the big scale of the league it didn't mean much. But this was a great game to watch, and made an otherwise ordinary Thursday really enjoyable. Can't tell me that's not worthwhile.
Sho nuff!
I think this is a better example. We didn't win a title that year but i got to witness one of the best playoff series of all time with my team coming out on top. This video still gives me goosebumps. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg7asI27M_A
-
80%- Love of your team no matter what, in this case the Celtics
20%-Winning a Championship
But that 20% is a darn good feeling!!!
I liked when the Mavs won the title and beat the Heat in 2011. But since it was missing that 80%, I didn't care as much
-
ye buddy :)
Kobe said it best himself last evening
-
Absolutely not. The Team and it's attempts to win Championships should be warranted but the flooring of a decent NBA Team is as important because winning it all takes not only skill in trading and drafting but luck also. So if one were to cry over not winning Championship every year that would be very wearing.
-
Absolutely not.
The pleasure I find in the Celtics is watching Celtic basketball - ball movement, transition basketball, attacking the rim, tough defense.
All the things this team hasn't done until the last couple of weeks, which have been the best basketball I've seen from the Celtics since 08.
-
Out of curiosity how many of you would ever wear a Dan Marino jersey? Do you think Miami fans wear them or wear Bron jerseys? Out of curiosity how many of you have a Bledsoe jersey and a Brady jersey and purposely opt for the Bledsoe jersey more than half the time?
Anyone here have any AFC championship commemoration rings? Or anything?
There are some things more important that championships, but not many.
People say there are some things more important to them than championships, but at the end of the day it doesn't really happen that much. That's why there are way way way more Lakers fans than Clippers fans. One team aspired to rings and the other didn't. This is why there are way more Yankees fans than Mets fans. It's why there are more Giants than Jets fans. It's why nationally the most popular NFL teams are Dallas and Green Bay. Not Detroit.
How many people wear junior varsity jackets even if they had a really good time on JV and won a lot and JV and had a bad time on varsity and didn't win much on varsity? Brady is the varsity jacket. Bledsoe is the JV jacket.
I wonder how many New England fans would rather wear a Moss jersey or a Troy Brown or Deion Branch one.
I wonder how many Celts fans would rather wear a Sheed jersey than a Powe or Perkins.
-
i feel sorry for fans who think championships are the only thing that matters. a lot of disappointment for them! it is completely unrealistic to win it all every year
-
i feel sorry for fans who think championships are the only thing that matters. a lot of disappointment for them! it is completely unrealistic to win it all every year
of course it is, but I don't think anyone expects it, but what I do expect is that the team I am rooting for is either in championship contender or has the ability to get there with much of the current roster at some point in the near future. Being a fan of the team like the Clippers had to suck until the last year or so.
-
I wonder how many Celts fans would rather wear a Sheed jersey than a Powe or Perkins.
The reason a lot of fans appreciate Powe or Perk over Sheed has nothing to do with championships won.
-
In my world winning isn't everything it's the only thing. ;)
-
As a fan, I expect a championship at the beginning of every year. Sometimes I know it won't happen, but I still expect it.
-
I'd much rather watch this group the rest of the year and they lose every single game fighting the way they are than overhaul the roster and get #18 just a little sooner.
-
Titles are the only thing that matter to me when I feel my team is a legit contender. If they're in a rebuilding phase and the team gets bounced from the playoffs, but shows sings they're moving in the right direction, I can live with that. But I absolutely don't want them to be stuck in a state of good-but-not-good-enough.
I'm for being loyal to a long time star that gave all he had for the team if he can still contribute to a contending team in a meaningful way. The player doesn't need to be go-to guy, but still have enough to put the team over with some help from a supporting cast.
I certainly would not keep him around for old times sake. If it means we are handicapping our team's chances to become relevant again, then he needs to go.
-
I wonder how many Celts fans would rather wear a Sheed jersey than a Powe or Perkins.
The reason a lot of fans appreciate Powe or Perk over Sheed has nothing to do with championships won.
Well who do you think fans in Detroit prefer? Why do you think that is? What is the difference there?
-
I wonder how many Celts fans would rather wear a Sheed jersey than a Powe or Perkins.
The reason a lot of fans appreciate Powe or Perk over Sheed has nothing to do with championships won.
Well who do you think fans in Detroit prefer? Why do you think that is? What is the difference there?
Powe and Perk were never Pistons?
-
I wonder how many Celts fans would rather wear a Sheed jersey than a Powe or Perkins.
The reason a lot of fans appreciate Powe or Perk over Sheed has nothing to do with championships won.
Well who do you think fans in Detroit prefer? Why do you think that is? What is the difference there?
Powe and Perk were never Pistons?
Well do you ever hear Pistons fans going around saying anything like "Gee. I wish we had had Powe or Perk instead of Sheed"? Or anyone for that matter? Seeing as respect for champions has nothing do with appreciation.
-
I have to admit I'm a little curious how many fans here wouldn't go back in time to trade Bird for Jordan. I'd do it in a heartbeat.
-
Titles are the only thing that matter to me when I feel my team is a legit contender. If they're in a rebuilding phase and the team gets bounced from the playoffs, but shows sings they're moving in the right direction, I can live with that. But I absolutely don't want them to be stuck in a state of good-but-not-good-enough.
I'm for being loyal to a long time star that gave all he had for the team if he can still contribute to a contending team in a meaningful way. The player doesn't need to be go-to guy, but still have enough to put the team over with some help from a supporting cast.
I certainly would not keep him around for old times sake. If it means we are handicapping our team's chances to become relevant again, then he needs to go.
Very well said and i think this is where we're at now.
-
Titles are the only thing that matter to me when I feel my team is a legit contender. If they're in a rebuilding phase and the team gets bounced from the playoffs, but shows sings they're moving in the right direction, I can live with that. But I absolutely don't want them to be stuck in a state of good-but-not-good-enough.
But sometimes you have to tread water for a while until the right move comes along to vault you into title contention. You don't automatically tear a team apart just because it's not a championship contender. When Ainge arrived and blew up Boston's roster, it was the start of a long term process to accumulate assets. The main reason he hasn't blow up this roster is because no one's offered him enough assets to justify it.
Mike
-
I have to admit I'm a little curious how many fans here wouldn't go back in time to trade Bird for Jordan. I'd do it in a heartbeat.
I wonder how many fans that were fans during the Reggie Lewis years would trade being a Celtic fan and missing all the heartache and mourning after he died for being a Bulls fan and winning those championships.
Living through Reggie and Lenny Bias made me the Celtic fan I am today. Championships are fine things. Being a true fan of something and enjoying everything that being a fan of that thing or hobby or sport entails is what is truly important about being a fan.
-
I have to admit I'm a little curious how many fans here wouldn't go back in time to trade Bird for Jordan. I'd do it in a heartbeat.
I wonder how many fans that were fans during the Reggie Lewis years would trade being a Celtic fan and missing all the heartache and mourning after he died for being a Bulls fan and winning those championships.
Living through Reggie and Lenny Bias made me the Celtic fan I am today. Championships are fine things. Being a true fan of something and enjoying everything that being a fan of that thing or hobby or sport entails is what is truly important about being a fan.
Wait a second. Are you saying you're happy they died as opposed to winning championships? Because somehow it made you a better fan? I understand the whole Sisyphus was a winner bit but I'm not sure losing can make a fan base better. Or can make you a better fan or something. I mean I'll definitely take Cubs fans over Mets fans, but one of the top things Celts fans point out is the banners, not the 90s
-
I have to admit I'm a little curious how many fans here wouldn't go back in time to trade Bird for Jordan. I'd do it in a heartbeat.
I wonder how many fans that were fans during the Reggie Lewis years would trade being a Celtic fan and missing all the heartache and mourning after he died for being a Bulls fan and winning those championships.
Living through Reggie and Lenny Bias made me the Celtic fan I am today. Championships are fine things. Being a true fan of something and enjoying everything that being a fan of that thing or hobby or sport entails is what is truly important about being a fan.
Wait a second. Are you saying you're happy they died as opposed to winning championships? Because somehow it made you a better fan? I understand the whole Sisyphus was a winner bit but I'm not sure losing can make a fan base better. Or can make you a better fan or something. I mean I'll definitely take Cubs fans over Mets fans, but one of the top things Celts fans point out is the banners, not the 90s
Being a fan isn't about being a front runner eja. I've been a Celtic fan since '74. I love pointing at the championships, but that isn't what being a Celtic fan is all about. Its about tradition, and team, and the players, and the moments, both good and bad.
Did I want Bias and Lewis to die? Don't be ridiculous. Would I have rather been winning championships in the 90's? Sure.
But I am a Celtics fan and couldn't. So I embrace what did happen because its part of our legacy. And history and legacy are as important to being a fan of this team as any other.
-
I have to admit I'm a little curious how many fans here wouldn't go back in time to trade Bird for Jordan. I'd do it in a heartbeat.
I wonder how many fans that were fans during the Reggie Lewis years would trade being a Celtic fan and missing all the heartache and mourning after he died for being a Bulls fan and winning those championships.
Living through Reggie and Lenny Bias made me the Celtic fan I am today. Championships are fine things. Being a true fan of something and enjoying everything that being a fan of that thing or hobby or sport entails is what is truly important about being a fan.
Wait a second. Are you saying you're happy they died as opposed to winning championships? Because somehow it made you a better fan? I understand the whole Sisyphus was a winner bit but I'm not sure losing can make a fan base better. Or can make you a better fan or something. I mean I'll definitely take Cubs fans over Mets fans, but one of the top things Celts fans point out is the banners, not the 90s
Being a fan isn't about being a front runner eja. I've been a Celtic fan since '74. I love pointing at the championships, but that isn't what being a Celtic fan is all about. Its about tradition, and team, and the players, and the moments, both good and bad.
Did I want Bias and Lewis to die? Don't be ridiculous. Would I have rather been winning championships in the 90's? Sure.
But I am a Celtics fan and couldn't. So I embrace what did happen because its part of our legacy. And history and legacy are as important to being a fan of this team as any other.
I understand what you're saying, but is it really all about the tradition? About moments good and bad?
So what is the tradition? Is the tradition here ...winning?
Roy said in the OP being a fan is about more than championships.
So if Ainge came out and said tomorrow "Well. We have a trade or two on the table that would clearly lead us towards some championships but ...it's just about championships. We don't really aspire to that here. Here it's about tradition and moments good and bad. And it just didn't seem traditional to trade these guys at this time". that would be ok?
Because I wouldn't support a team I thought wasn't aspiring to winning championships. The Red Sox were dead to me last year because it was clear to me they were aspiring to getting their checks and their manager fired. If that makes me a bad fan then that's what I am.
It's interesting to me that Roy and a lot of others make the connection between Yankees fans and New England fans because I'm sure that for a long time whenever Sox fans mentioned Ted Williams as an all time great they must have rolled their eyes and I don't blame them at all.
My issue with them is that they have no shame about buying championships. If you have the highest payroll every year you should win every year.
-
So if Ainge came out and said tomorrow "Well. We have a trade or two on the table that would clearly lead us towards some championships but ...it's just about championships. We don't really aspire to that here. Here it's about tradition and moments good and bad. And it just didn't seem traditional to trade these guys at this time". that would be ok?
Championships are never guaranteed. Red held on to McHale and Bird. If tradition and loyalty are good enough for him, they're good enough for me.
I'm sure that for a long time whenever Sox fans mentioned Ted Williams as an all time great they must have rolled their eyes and I don't blame them at all.
Anybody who doesn't consider Ted Williams an all-time great clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.
-
So if Ainge came out and said tomorrow "Well. We have a trade or two on the table that would clearly lead us towards some championships but ...it's just about championships. We don't really aspire to that here. Here it's about tradition and moments good and bad. And it just didn't seem traditional to trade these guys at this time". that would be ok?
Championships are never guaranteed. Red held on to McHale and Bird. If tradition and loyalty are good enough for him, they're good enough for me.
I'm sure that for a long time whenever Sox fans mentioned Ted Williams as an all time great they must have rolled their eyes and I don't blame them at all.
Anybody who doesn't consider Ted Williams an all-time great clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.
There is just no way on Earth Ted can be considered in the same sentence with Babe Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Mantle, or even Jeter. No way. He's Marino. They're all Montanas. There's a difference between an all time great talent and all time great player.
Why even have championships? Why even have rings? Why keep score? It's so we know who was greatest when.
This stuff Lebron tried to pull last week about rings not defining a career is straight from the participation ribbon era.
One of the things I think that gets forgotten is that in a way when a guy like Malone or Barkley gets multiple Olympic golds that in a way means more to me than an NBA ring, because that's beating the whole world. It's a little apples/oranges and the comparison doesn't happen as much any more because the world's talent is in the NBA for the most part now, but that's why I find the Olympics pretty amazing basketball. It's always amazing to me when a tiny country with little NBA talent punches our NBA players in the face and humbles them.
also according to this it really is about the ring.......also the banner of Celtics Blog says "CelticsBlog - A Boston Celtics Blog: 17 banners and counting" It doesn't say anything about good times and bad or tradition. I have been misled!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFhjs-gem2o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KHTVVJ3h6M
-
Maybe a better question should be, "are championships the most important thing that matters?"
-
I would have given up both World Series Championships to have spent the summer watching Ted Williams in 1941.
That's how great Ted Williams was. Watching his greatness would mean more to me than the titles.
Same goes for Bill Russell in the early 60's. I would give up the 2008 title to have been able to watch Russell and those early 60's Celtics for a year.
I already saw the greatest Bruins and Pats teams ever(70-72 Bruins and the 76-77 Pats) so I don't have any such wish with them.
-
So if Ainge came out and said tomorrow "Well. We have a trade or two on the table that would clearly lead us towards some championships but ...it's just about championships. We don't really aspire to that here. Here it's about tradition and moments good and bad. And it just didn't seem traditional to trade these guys at this time". that would be ok?
Championships are never guaranteed. Red held on to McHale and Bird. If tradition and loyalty are good enough for him, they're good enough for me.
I'm sure that for a long time whenever Sox fans mentioned Ted Williams as an all time great they must have rolled their eyes and I don't blame them at all.
Anybody who doesn't consider Ted Williams an all-time great clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.
There is just no way on Earth Ted can be considered in the same sentence with Babe Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Mantle, or even Jeter. No way. He's Marino. They're all Montanas. There's a difference between an all time great talent and all time great player.
It's getting harder and harder to take you seriously.
-
So if Ainge came out and said tomorrow "Well. We have a trade or two on the table that would clearly lead us towards some championships but ...it's just about championships. We don't really aspire to that here. Here it's about tradition and moments good and bad. And it just didn't seem traditional to trade these guys at this time". that would be ok?
Championships are never guaranteed. Red held on to McHale and Bird. If tradition and loyalty are good enough for him, they're good enough for me.
I'm sure that for a long time whenever Sox fans mentioned Ted Williams as an all time great they must have rolled their eyes and I don't blame them at all.
Anybody who doesn't consider Ted Williams an all-time great clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.
There is just no way on Earth Ted can be considered in the same sentence with Babe Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Mantle, or even Jeter. No way. He's Marino. They're all Montanas. There's a difference between an all time great talent and all time great player.
It's getting harder and harder to take you seriously.
Well can rings be taken seriously? I mean you drew the comparison between NE fans and Yankees fans. Do you not take Yankees fans or the Yankees seriously? Are or you just sorta in awe of the Milwaukee Brewers because you can take them more seriously? I get that it's universally agreed that Ted was historically talented and a gift to the game. So was Marino and Patrick Ewing.
And I absolutely would not ever have given up watching a championship to watch a season of Ted. Talk about not being able to take things seriously.
Are we not taking people seriously who are saying we should trade KG and/or Pierce for Bledsoe/Jordan because that's not what Red did or it's not traditional enough?
-
So if Ainge came out and said tomorrow "Well. We have a trade or two on the table that would clearly lead us towards some championships but ...it's just about championships. We don't really aspire to that here. Here it's about tradition and moments good and bad. And it just didn't seem traditional to trade these guys at this time". that would be ok?
Championships are never guaranteed. Red held on to McHale and Bird. If tradition and loyalty are good enough for him, they're good enough for me.
I'm sure that for a long time whenever Sox fans mentioned Ted Williams as an all time great they must have rolled their eyes and I don't blame them at all.
Anybody who doesn't consider Ted Williams an all-time great clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.
There is just no way on Earth Ted can be considered in the same sentence with Babe Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Mantle, or even Jeter. No way. He's Marino. They're all Montanas. There's a difference between an all time great talent and all time great player.
It's getting harder and harder to take you seriously.
Well can rings be taken seriously? I mean you drew the comparison between NE fans and Yankees fans. Do you not take Yankees fans or the Yankees seriously? Are or you just sorta in awe of the Milwaukee Brewers because you can take them more seriously? I get that it's universally agreed that Ted was historically talented and a gift to the game. So was Marino and Patrick Ewing.
You get that Ted was historically talented player but you claim that he can't be mentioned in the same breath as players like DiMaggio or Mantle or Jeter. Are you claiming that those players were significantly better individual players than Williams, or that they were on more successful teams than he was? If it's based on team success then you're claiming that he can't be mentioned in the same breath with other players because they had better teammates than he did. Which would be, as Roy mentioned, tough to take seriously.
-
So if Ainge came out and said tomorrow "Well. We have a trade or two on the table that would clearly lead us towards some championships but ...it's just about championships. We don't really aspire to that here. Here it's about tradition and moments good and bad. And it just didn't seem traditional to trade these guys at this time". that would be ok?
Championships are never guaranteed. Red held on to McHale and Bird. If tradition and loyalty are good enough for him, they're good enough for me.
I'm sure that for a long time whenever Sox fans mentioned Ted Williams as an all time great they must have rolled their eyes and I don't blame them at all.
Anybody who doesn't consider Ted Williams an all-time great clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.
There is just no way on Earth Ted can be considered in the same sentence with Babe Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Mantle, or even Jeter. No way. He's Marino. They're all Montanas. There's a difference between an all time great talent and all time great player.
It's getting harder and harder to take you seriously.
Well can rings be taken seriously? I mean you drew the comparison between NE fans and Yankees fans. Do you not take Yankees fans or the Yankees seriously? Are or you just sorta in awe of the Milwaukee Brewers because you can take them more seriously? I get that it's universally agreed that Ted was historically talented and a gift to the game. So was Marino and Patrick Ewing.
You get that Ted was historically talented player but you claim that he can't be mentioned in the same breath as players like DiMaggio or Mantle or Jeter. Are you claiming that those players were significantly better individual players than Williams, or that they were on more successful teams than he was? If it's based on team success then you're claiming that he can't be mentioned in the same breath with other players because they had better teammates than he did. Which would be, as Roy mentioned, tough to take seriously.
Yeah. Somehow Jeter just happened to have better teammates again and again and again. And MJ too. He's so lucky he had Scottie Pippen and Steve Kerr and Horace Grant. He totally owes his success to them. And Brady. Man is he lucky that he had Deion Branch to pass to. I don't know what I was thinking or how I could be taken seriously to suggest DiMaggio or Babe Ruth were better than Ted. How silly all those Japanese were when they yelled to heck with Babe Ruth. They should have been yelling to heck with Ted. Granted Ted was trying to shoot them down, but still.
-
So if Ainge came out and said tomorrow "Well. We have a trade or two on the table that would clearly lead us towards some championships but ...it's just about championships. We don't really aspire to that here. Here it's about tradition and moments good and bad. And it just didn't seem traditional to trade these guys at this time". that would be ok?
Championships are never guaranteed. Red held on to McHale and Bird. If tradition and loyalty are good enough for him, they're good enough for me.
I'm sure that for a long time whenever Sox fans mentioned Ted Williams as an all time great they must have rolled their eyes and I don't blame them at all.
Anybody who doesn't consider Ted Williams an all-time great clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.
There is just no way on Earth Ted can be considered in the same sentence with Babe Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Mantle, or even Jeter. No way. He's Marino. They're all Montanas. There's a difference between an all time great talent and all time great player.
It's getting harder and harder to take you seriously.
Well can rings be taken seriously? I mean you drew the comparison between NE fans and Yankees fans. Do you not take Yankees fans or the Yankees seriously? Are or you just sorta in awe of the Milwaukee Brewers because you can take them more seriously? I get that it's universally agreed that Ted was historically talented and a gift to the game. So was Marino and Patrick Ewing.
You get that Ted was historically talented player but you claim that he can't be mentioned in the same breath as players like DiMaggio or Mantle or Jeter. Are you claiming that those players were significantly better individual players than Williams, or that they were on more successful teams than he was? If it's based on team success then you're claiming that he can't be mentioned in the same breath with other players because they had better teammates than he did. Which would be, as Roy mentioned, tough to take seriously.
Yeah. Somehow Jeter just happened to have better teammates again and again and again. And MJ too. He's so lucky he had Scottie Pippen and Steve Kerr and Horace Grant. He totally owes his success to them. And Brady. Man is he lucky that he had Deion Branch to pass to. I don't know what I was thinking or how I could be taken seriously to suggest DiMaggio or Babe Ruth were better than Ted. How silly all those Japanese were when they yelled to heck with Babe Ruth. They should have been yelling to heck with Ted. Granted Ted was trying to shoot them down, but still.
The Yanks have the highest payroll in the league. Are you certain that Jeter didn't have the better teammates?
And we've all seen Brady fall short of winning a title when he didn't have top level receivers, the year the Pats dumped Branch is a prime example of it. And just out of curiosity, since Brady hasn't won a title in a while, are you claiming that he began regressing as a player the year he won his last title and he's never been able to play at as high a level as he did during those years? That he was a significantly better qb in 2003 than he was in the years that he had more touchdowns, fewer interceptions and a higher completion percentage and qb rating?
-
So if Ainge came out and said tomorrow "Well. We have a trade or two on the table that would clearly lead us towards some championships but ...it's just about championships. We don't really aspire to that here. Here it's about tradition and moments good and bad. And it just didn't seem traditional to trade these guys at this time". that would be ok?
Championships are never guaranteed. Red held on to McHale and Bird. If tradition and loyalty are good enough for him, they're good enough for me.
I'm sure that for a long time whenever Sox fans mentioned Ted Williams as an all time great they must have rolled their eyes and I don't blame them at all.
Anybody who doesn't consider Ted Williams an all-time great clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.
There is just no way on Earth Ted can be considered in the same sentence with Babe Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Mantle, or even Jeter. No way. He's Marino. They're all Montanas. There's a difference between an all time great talent and all time great player.
It's getting harder and harder to take you seriously.
Well can rings be taken seriously? I mean you drew the comparison between NE fans and Yankees fans. Do you not take Yankees fans or the Yankees seriously? Are or you just sorta in awe of the Milwaukee Brewers because you can take them more seriously? I get that it's universally agreed that Ted was historically talented and a gift to the game. So was Marino and Patrick Ewing.
You get that Ted was historically talented player but you claim that he can't be mentioned in the same breath as players like DiMaggio or Mantle or Jeter. Are you claiming that those players were significantly better individual players than Williams, or that they were on more successful teams than he was? If it's based on team success then you're claiming that he can't be mentioned in the same breath with other players because they had better teammates than he did. Which would be, as Roy mentioned, tough to take seriously.
Yeah. Somehow Jeter just happened to have better teammates again and again and again. And MJ too. He's so lucky he had Scottie Pippen and Steve Kerr and Horace Grant. He totally owes his success to them. And Brady. Man is he lucky that he had Deion Branch to pass to. I don't know what I was thinking or how I could be taken seriously to suggest DiMaggio or Babe Ruth were better than Ted. How silly all those Japanese were when they yelled to heck with Babe Ruth. They should have been yelling to heck with Ted. Granted Ted was trying to shoot them down, but still.
The Yanks have the highest payroll in the league. Are you certain that Jeter didn't have the better teammates?
And we've all seen Brady fall short of winning a title when he didn't have top level receivers, the year the Pats dumped Branch is a prime example of it. And just out of curiosity, since Brady hasn't won a title in a while, are you claiming that he began regressing as a player the year he won his last title and he's never been able to play at as high a level as he did during those years? That he was a significantly better qb in 2003 than he was in the years that he had more touchdowns, fewer interceptions and a higher completion percentage and qb rating?
Brady has definitely not played as well in the Super Bowl or the playoffs since 2003. Especially the last Super Bowl. Especially when Mark Sanchez was beating the crud out of him. Especially when the Ravens beat the crud out of him this year. Yes. When it mattered he has positively come up very Manningish. Montana didn't win every year out either. Great ones do have primes and decline. It happens. Some differently than others. And yes. Dirk had a better year the year he won a ring than the year he won the MVP but was knocked from the playoffs by the 8th seed Warriors.
-
So if Ainge came out and said tomorrow "Well. We have a trade or two on the table that would clearly lead us towards some championships but ...it's just about championships. We don't really aspire to that here. Here it's about tradition and moments good and bad. And it just didn't seem traditional to trade these guys at this time". that would be ok?
Championships are never guaranteed. Red held on to McHale and Bird. If tradition and loyalty are good enough for him, they're good enough for me.
I'm sure that for a long time whenever Sox fans mentioned Ted Williams as an all time great they must have rolled their eyes and I don't blame them at all.
Anybody who doesn't consider Ted Williams an all-time great clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.
There is just no way on Earth Ted can be considered in the same sentence with Babe Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Mantle, or even Jeter. No way. He's Marino. They're all Montanas. There's a difference between an all time great talent and all time great player.
It's getting harder and harder to take you seriously.
Well can rings be taken seriously? I mean you drew the comparison between NE fans and Yankees fans. Do you not take Yankees fans or the Yankees seriously? Are or you just sorta in awe of the Milwaukee Brewers because you can take them more seriously? I get that it's universally agreed that Ted was historically talented and a gift to the game. So was Marino and Patrick Ewing.
You get that Ted was historically talented player but you claim that he can't be mentioned in the same breath as players like DiMaggio or Mantle or Jeter. Are you claiming that those players were significantly better individual players than Williams, or that they were on more successful teams than he was? If it's based on team success then you're claiming that he can't be mentioned in the same breath with other players because they had better teammates than he did. Which would be, as Roy mentioned, tough to take seriously.
Yeah. Somehow Jeter just happened to have better teammates again and again and again. And MJ too. He's so lucky he had Scottie Pippen and Steve Kerr and Horace Grant. He totally owes his success to them. And Brady. Man is he lucky that he had Deion Branch to pass to. I don't know what I was thinking or how I could be taken seriously to suggest DiMaggio or Babe Ruth were better than Ted. How silly all those Japanese were when they yelled to heck with Babe Ruth. They should have been yelling to heck with Ted. Granted Ted was trying to shoot them down, but still.
The Yanks have the highest payroll in the league. Are you certain that Jeter didn't have the better teammates?
And we've all seen Brady fall short of winning a title when he didn't have top level receivers, the year the Pats dumped Branch is a prime example of it. And just out of curiosity, since Brady hasn't won a title in a while, are you claiming that he began regressing as a player the year he won his last title and he's never been able to play at as high a level as he did during those years? That he was a significantly better qb in 2003 than he was in the years that he had more touchdowns, fewer interceptions and a higher completion percentage and qb rating?
Brady has definitely not played as well in the Super Bowl or the playoffs since 2003. Especially the last Super Bowl. Especially when Mark Sanchez was beating the crud out of him. Especially when the Ravens beat the crud out of him this year. Yes. When it mattered he has positively come up very Manningish. Montana didn't win every year out either. Great ones do have primes and decline. It happens. Some differently than others.
I guess declining before you enter your prime would count as differently than others. Again, a couple of plays break the other way in 3-4 of Brady's super bowls and the results change, as does your opinion of when Brady was "Montanaish" or "Manningish" at the time. Not necessarily plays that Brady made or didn't make, but plays his teammates made or didn't make. Your opinion of him as an individual player is directly related to the performance of other players on the team, including defensive and special team players or even coaches. Same with your opinion of other players.
-
So if Ainge came out and said tomorrow "Well. We have a trade or two on the table that would clearly lead us towards some championships but ...it's just about championships. We don't really aspire to that here. Here it's about tradition and moments good and bad. And it just didn't seem traditional to trade these guys at this time". that would be ok?
Championships are never guaranteed. Red held on to McHale and Bird. If tradition and loyalty are good enough for him, they're good enough for me.
I'm sure that for a long time whenever Sox fans mentioned Ted Williams as an all time great they must have rolled their eyes and I don't blame them at all.
Anybody who doesn't consider Ted Williams an all-time great clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.
There is just no way on Earth Ted can be considered in the same sentence with Babe Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Mantle, or even Jeter. No way. He's Marino. They're all Montanas. There's a difference between an all time great talent and all time great player.
It's getting harder and harder to take you seriously.
Well can rings be taken seriously? I mean you drew the comparison between NE fans and Yankees fans. Do you not take Yankees fans or the Yankees seriously? Are or you just sorta in awe of the Milwaukee Brewers because you can take them more seriously? I get that it's universally agreed that Ted was historically talented and a gift to the game. So was Marino and Patrick Ewing.
You get that Ted was historically talented player but you claim that he can't be mentioned in the same breath as players like DiMaggio or Mantle or Jeter. Are you claiming that those players were significantly better individual players than Williams, or that they were on more successful teams than he was? If it's based on team success then you're claiming that he can't be mentioned in the same breath with other players because they had better teammates than he did. Which would be, as Roy mentioned, tough to take seriously.
Yeah. Somehow Jeter just happened to have better teammates again and again and again. And MJ too. He's so lucky he had Scottie Pippen and Steve Kerr and Horace Grant. He totally owes his success to them. And Brady. Man is he lucky that he had Deion Branch to pass to. I don't know what I was thinking or how I could be taken seriously to suggest DiMaggio or Babe Ruth were better than Ted. How silly all those Japanese were when they yelled to heck with Babe Ruth. They should have been yelling to heck with Ted. Granted Ted was trying to shoot them down, but still.
The Yanks have the highest payroll in the league. Are you certain that Jeter didn't have the better teammates?
And we've all seen Brady fall short of winning a title when he didn't have top level receivers, the year the Pats dumped Branch is a prime example of it. And just out of curiosity, since Brady hasn't won a title in a while, are you claiming that he began regressing as a player the year he won his last title and he's never been able to play at as high a level as he did during those years? That he was a significantly better qb in 2003 than he was in the years that he had more touchdowns, fewer interceptions and a higher completion percentage and qb rating?
Brady has definitely not played as well in the Super Bowl or the playoffs since 2003. Especially the last Super Bowl. Especially when Mark Sanchez was beating the crud out of him. Especially when the Ravens beat the crud out of him this year. Yes. When it mattered he has positively come up very Manningish. Montana didn't win every year out either. Great ones do have primes and decline. It happens. Some differently than others.
I guess declining before you enter your prime would count as differently than others. Again, a couple of plays break the other way in 3-4 of Brady's super bowls and the results change, as does your opinion of when Brady was "Montanaish" or "Manningish" at the time. Not necessarily plays that Brady made or didn't make, but plays his teammates made or didn't make. Your opinion of him as an individual player is directly related to the performance of other players on the team, including defensive and special team players or even coaches. Same with your opinion of other players.
Well there's the combine where they get measured against each other. He didn't do very well at the combine. There's also those QB feats competitions where they throw at stuff. He might very well lose there.
So I ask myself. If you trade Brady for Manning straight up which team gets better and which gets worse. You could ask it about Montana or Marino too. You could ask it about DiMaggio and Ted too.
-
So if Ainge came out and said tomorrow "Well. We have a trade or two on the table that would clearly lead us towards some championships but ...it's just about championships. We don't really aspire to that here. Here it's about tradition and moments good and bad. And it just didn't seem traditional to trade these guys at this time". that would be ok?
Championships are never guaranteed. Red held on to McHale and Bird. If tradition and loyalty are good enough for him, they're good enough for me.
I'm sure that for a long time whenever Sox fans mentioned Ted Williams as an all time great they must have rolled their eyes and I don't blame them at all.
Anybody who doesn't consider Ted Williams an all-time great clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.
There is just no way on Earth Ted can be considered in the same sentence with Babe Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Mantle, or even Jeter. No way. He's Marino. They're all Montanas. There's a difference between an all time great talent and all time great player.
It's getting harder and harder to take you seriously.
Well can rings be taken seriously? I mean you drew the comparison between NE fans and Yankees fans. Do you not take Yankees fans or the Yankees seriously? Are or you just sorta in awe of the Milwaukee Brewers because you can take them more seriously? I get that it's universally agreed that Ted was historically talented and a gift to the game. So was Marino and Patrick Ewing.
You get that Ted was historically talented player but you claim that he can't be mentioned in the same breath as players like DiMaggio or Mantle or Jeter. Are you claiming that those players were significantly better individual players than Williams, or that they were on more successful teams than he was? If it's based on team success then you're claiming that he can't be mentioned in the same breath with other players because they had better teammates than he did. Which would be, as Roy mentioned, tough to take seriously.
Yeah. Somehow Jeter just happened to have better teammates again and again and again. And MJ too. He's so lucky he had Scottie Pippen and Steve Kerr and Horace Grant. He totally owes his success to them. And Brady. Man is he lucky that he had Deion Branch to pass to. I don't know what I was thinking or how I could be taken seriously to suggest DiMaggio or Babe Ruth were better than Ted. How silly all those Japanese were when they yelled to heck with Babe Ruth. They should have been yelling to heck with Ted. Granted Ted was trying to shoot them down, but still.
The Yanks have the highest payroll in the league. Are you certain that Jeter didn't have the better teammates?
And we've all seen Brady fall short of winning a title when he didn't have top level receivers, the year the Pats dumped Branch is a prime example of it. And just out of curiosity, since Brady hasn't won a title in a while, are you claiming that he began regressing as a player the year he won his last title and he's never been able to play at as high a level as he did during those years? That he was a significantly better qb in 2003 than he was in the years that he had more touchdowns, fewer interceptions and a higher completion percentage and qb rating?
Brady has definitely not played as well in the Super Bowl or the playoffs since 2003. Especially the last Super Bowl. Especially when Mark Sanchez was beating the crud out of him. Especially when the Ravens beat the crud out of him this year. Yes. When it mattered he has positively come up very Manningish. Montana didn't win every year out either. Great ones do have primes and decline. It happens. Some differently than others.
I guess declining before you enter your prime would count as differently than others. Again, a couple of plays break the other way in 3-4 of Brady's super bowls and the results change, as does your opinion of when Brady was "Montanaish" or "Manningish" at the time. Not necessarily plays that Brady made or didn't make, but plays his teammates made or didn't make. Your opinion of him as an individual player is directly related to the performance of other players on the team, including defensive and special team players or even coaches. Same with your opinion of other players.
Well there's the combine where they get measured against each other. He didn't do very well at the combine. There's also those QB feats competitions where they throw at stuff. He might very well lose there.
So I ask myself. If you trade Brady for Manning straight up which team gets better and which gets worse. You could ask it about Montana or Marino too. You could ask it about DiMaggio and Ted too.
Yes, you could ask it about Williams and DiMaggio, but the answer wouldn't be anywhere near the landslide for DiMaggio that you claimed it would.
-
Ted Williams is a better player than Joe Dimaggio. I don't even think it is close. In fact, most experts put Ted Williams in the top 4 position players all time right there with Ruth, Mays, and Bonds (at least those that still recognize Bonds).
EDIT: And just so you know I'm not making stuff up, here is the ESPN list of the 100 greatest players of all time. http://espn.go.com/mlb/feature/video/_/id/8652210/espn-hall-100-ranking-all-time-greatest-mlb-players (http://espn.go.com/mlb/feature/video/_/id/8652210/espn-hall-100-ranking-all-time-greatest-mlb-players) Ruth, Mays, Bonds, Williams are the top 4. Aaron is 5th. Followed by Cobb, Clemens, Musial, Mantle, and Wagner. Joe D. is 21st on the list. This was made December 4, 2012 so it is recent and obviously doesn't discount the PED era.