Ainge on 98.5 FM’s The Sports Hub’s Toucher and Rich show, talk TPE

[IDreamCeltics]

Look the point here is that the assumptions and leaps of faith you're willing to make with other teams never get extended to your takes on the Celtics.

I know you're capable of spinning out a detailed block text argument for why you like or don't like a team.

Does it ever get turned in favor of the Celtics?

Have you ever thought the Celtics were as good as most fans / pundits thought they were? 

Seriously, when was the last time you liked the Celtics and thought they were good?

The Celtics are good, but they aren't great and thus not a realistic contender and haven't been since KG got old.  There is a reason they haven't been to the Finals since 2010.  Maybe I'm not the crazy one I'm portrayed to be.  I mean I was clearly right about Rondo.  I was clearly right about Irving.  I've been saying Tatum was the most important player to the C's success since Irving was on the team.  I was out in front of that one early, but Tatum isn't a MVP caliber player yet.  I absolutely think he could be, but he isn't yet, and he absolutely needs to be for Boston to have realistic title aspirations.  He is also 22 and in his 4th year.  Most players really start hitting their peak in year 6.  Let's see what he and the team looks like then.

Look I get it.  Fans often have unrealistic views of their teams and the players on it and someone like me that is a realist can come off as negative.  I love the Celtics, I want them to win titles, but I can also look at this team and know that it is flawed and not a title contender.  Tatum and Brown aren't yet good enough and the rest of the roster just isn't very good, doesn't fit well together, and lacks size.  The bench is incredibly small and young as well.   And these aren't new things either as it has been this way for years.  In fact the team keeps getting smaller.  I mean it had Horford and Baynes starting with Tatum, Brown, and Irving not that long ago.  That team had size, it had length, and it still wasn't good enough because Irving as a lead player wasn't good enough.  The team just keeps getting smaller.  The bench keeps getting younger.  And the team keeps losing talented players that it replaces with lesser players.  As hard as I was on Irving, he was better than Walker (though as I correctly predicted the team would be better without Irving and his divaness).  Horford and Hayward quite simply weren't replaced at all.  Obviously Tatum and Brown are better now than they were then, but the rest of the team isn't.  It is in fact much worse and Boston has no prime draft picks coming up anymore and none of the other young players look like they will be much more than bench fodder (still early for Nesmith and Pritchard so I'm not counting them).   Sometimes the truth hurts, but someone has to speak it or this just board just becomes a place of green-tinted glasses that loses touch with reality.

Agree.  TP for speaking the truth even when you were getting killed on the boards for saying it.

[Somebody]

Look the point here is that the assumptions and leaps of faith you're willing to make with other teams never get extended to your takes on the Celtics.

I know you're capable of spinning out a detailed block text argument for why you like or don't like a team.

Does it ever get turned in favor of the Celtics?

Have you ever thought the Celtics were as good as most fans / pundits thought they were? 

Seriously, when was the last time you liked the Celtics and thought they were good?

The Celtics are good, but they aren't great and thus not a realistic contender and haven't been since KG got old.  There is a reason they haven't been to the Finals since 2010.  Maybe I'm not the crazy one I'm portrayed to be.  I mean I was clearly right about Rondo.  I was clearly right about Irving.  I've been saying Tatum was the most important player to the C's success since Irving was on the team.  I was out in front of that one early, but Tatum isn't a MVP caliber player yet.  I absolutely think he could be, but he isn't yet, and he absolutely needs to be for Boston to have realistic title aspirations.  He is also 22 and in his 4th year.  Most players really start hitting their peak in year 6.  Let's see what he and the team looks like then.

Look I get it.  Fans often have unrealistic views of their teams and the players on it and someone like me that is a realist can come off as negative.  I love the Celtics, I want them to win titles, but I can also look at this team and know that it is flawed and not a title contender.  Tatum and Brown aren't yet good enough and the rest of the roster just isn't very good, doesn't fit well together, and lacks size.  The bench is incredibly small and young as well.   And these aren't new things either as it has been this way for years.  In fact the team keeps getting smaller.  I mean it had Horford and Baynes starting with Tatum, Brown, and Irving not that long ago.  That team had size, it had length, and it still wasn't good enough because Irving as a lead player wasn't good enough.  The team just keeps getting smaller.  The bench keeps getting younger.  And the team keeps losing talented players that it replaces with lesser players.  As hard as I was on Irving, he was better than Walker (though as I correctly predicted the team would be better without Irving and his divaness).  Horford and Hayward quite simply weren't replaced at all.  Obviously Tatum and Brown are better now than they were then, but the rest of the team isn't.  It is in fact much worse and Boston has no prime draft picks coming up anymore and none of the other young players look like they will be much more than bench fodder (still early for Nesmith and Pritchard so I'm not counting them).   Sometimes the truth hurts, but someone has to speak it or this just board just becomes a place of green-tinted glasses that loses touch with reality.

Haha, oh boy. It's definitely not your supposed 'realism' that rubs people the wrong way, it's this exact attitude

Is both not possible?

[Neurotic Guy]

I enjoy the Moranis takes.  Lots of good knowledge and good to see alternative viewpoints.   Maybe "my reality IS reality" isn't necessary but I think always good reads. 

[Moranis]

Look the point here is that the assumptions and leaps of faith you're willing to make with other teams never get extended to your takes on the Celtics.

I know you're capable of spinning out a detailed block text argument for why you like or don't like a team.

Does it ever get turned in favor of the Celtics?

Have you ever thought the Celtics were as good as most fans / pundits thought they were? 

Seriously, when was the last time you liked the Celtics and thought they were good?

The Celtics are good, but they aren't great and thus not a realistic contender and haven't been since KG got old.  There is a reason they haven't been to the Finals since 2010.  Maybe I'm not the crazy one I'm portrayed to be.  I mean I was clearly right about Rondo.  I was clearly right about Irving.  I've been saying Tatum was the most important player to the C's success since Irving was on the team.  I was out in front of that one early, but Tatum isn't a MVP caliber player yet.  I absolutely think he could be, but he isn't yet, and he absolutely needs to be for Boston to have realistic title aspirations.  He is also 22 and in his 4th year.  Most players really start hitting their peak in year 6.  Let's see what he and the team looks like then.

Look I get it.  Fans often have unrealistic views of their teams and the players on it and someone like me that is a realist can come off as negative.  I love the Celtics, I want them to win titles, but I can also look at this team and know that it is flawed and not a title contender.  Tatum and Brown aren't yet good enough and the rest of the roster just isn't very good, doesn't fit well together, and lacks size.  The bench is incredibly small and young as well.   And these aren't new things either as it has been this way for years.  In fact the team keeps getting smaller.  I mean it had Horford and Baynes starting with Tatum, Brown, and Irving not that long ago.  That team had size, it had length, and it still wasn't good enough because Irving as a lead player wasn't good enough.  The team just keeps getting smaller.  The bench keeps getting younger.  And the team keeps losing talented players that it replaces with lesser players.  As hard as I was on Irving, he was better than Walker (though as I correctly predicted the team would be better without Irving and his divaness).  Horford and Hayward quite simply weren't replaced at all.  Obviously Tatum and Brown are better now than they were then, but the rest of the team isn't.  It is in fact much worse and Boston has no prime draft picks coming up anymore and none of the other young players look like they will be much more than bench fodder (still early for Nesmith and Pritchard so I'm not counting them).   Sometimes the truth hurts, but someone has to speak it or this just board just becomes a place of green-tinted glasses that loses touch with reality.

Haha, oh boy. It's definitely not your supposed 'realism' that rubs people the wrong way, it's this exact attitude

I mean I just shook my head a lot reading the whole post. I was right about this, and oh by the way I was right about that. And oh yeah, simply put,  I was right about this too. It’s honestly an incredibly obnoxious style of writing and we would all be better off if we could avoid writing posts like that regardless of the content.

I wouldn't have to do that as much if people weren't still harping on things I got wrong years ago or legitimately asking me questions like to do I like the Celtics and other nonsense like that.  I point out when I was correct because it is important in that context to show I'm not just some negative nilly lunatic.  I was killed on this board for two years because I said Irving wasn't good enough, the team would be better off with replacing him with someone else, and would just be better off without him.  KILLED.  I point out I was right about that because it adds a level of context to my current posts.  I'm not just some hairbrained lunatic.  I do actually and generally know what I'm talking about and I've been proven right far more often then I've been proven wrong on the vast majority of what I post and yet I still have to defend basically every post that in some way is viewed as negative by most of the board.  It is exhausting, but I do it because I think it generally adds to the discourse on the board and I am actually right most of the time. 

[Moranis]

I enjoy the Moranis takes.  Lots of good knowledge and good to see alternative viewpoints.   Maybe "my reality IS reality" isn't necessary but I think always good reads.

Everyone posts with conviction though.  I'm not unique in that.  why I stand out more than most of the volume posters is I tend to be against the warm and fuzzy norm.  That is what it boils down to.  They hate the message so they hate the messenger, even if the message is generally borne out to be correct. 

[Neurotic Guy]

I enjoy the Moranis takes.  Lots of good knowledge and good to see alternative viewpoints.   Maybe "my reality IS reality" isn't necessary but I think always good reads.

Everyone posts with conviction though.  I'm not unique in that.  why I stand out more than most of the volume posters is I tend to be against the warm and fuzzy norm.  That is what it boils down to.  They hate the message so they hate the messenger, even if the message is generally borne out to be correct.

I’m a warm and fuzzy fan, but I like reading your posts.  Soul search time for me I guess.