Co workers, friends anti celtics fans now have another excuse

[Triboy16]

"Just like the mid 90's rockets the celtics have bought the nba trophy" stated one of my co workers who isn't a lakers fan just a general nba fan. I had another friend stating "is it fair that even if one of the big three is struggling you have two future potential hall of famers the other team still have to stop"??

Though i love the celtics and i'm in this journey for the trophy as many of you celtics faithful, i sort of can't truly deny these guys points. I like to believe even if we have three great players it is still a team effort, our bench isn't the best in the league so its sort of even with a team with 10 above average players, lastly our defense carried us this far and not only our offense but if we were all objective nba fans , the celtics in the end have 3 future poential hall of famers and a ridicously close semi nba all star team.

i don't like the celts being disrespected when they win it all, cuz they had three superstars and it was a given they would win. The same co worker above stated if we had oden or durant, with jefferson and pierce and only made it to the conference finals that would have been better than now(reputation wise).

Do you guys feel if the celts win this year(never again after that)people will look back and not really remember our great team effort and defense compared to that we had three super stars so it was given we won??

It is an interesting argument post the nba finals

[angryguy77]

I feel your pain. I posted a similar topic earlier today. But in the end the vast majority will remember nothing but who won the title. Most people outside of Sacramento wouldn't remember 2002 if it were not for Donaghy.

[crownsy]

"Just like the mid 90's rockets the celtics have bought the nba trophy" stated one of my co workers who isn't a lakers fan just a general nba fan. I had another friend stating "is it fair that even if one of the big three is struggling you have two future potential hall of famers the other team still have to stop"??

Though i love the celtics and i'm in this journey for the trophy as many of you celtics faithful, i sort of can't truly deny these guys points. I like to believe even if we have three great players it is still a team effort, our bench isn't the best in the league so its sort of even with a team with 10 above average players, lastly our defense carried us this far and not only our offense but if we were all objective nba fans , the celtics in the end have 3 future poential hall of famers and a ridicously close semi nba all star team.

i don't like the celts being disrespected when they win it all, cuz they had three superstars and it was a given they would win. The same co worker above stated if we had oden or durant, with jefferson and pierce and only made it to the conference finals that would have been better than now(reputation wise).

Do you guys feel if the celts win this year(never again after that)people will look back and not really remember our great team effort and defense compared to that we had three super stars so it was given we won??

It is an interesting argument post the nba finals

you should answer this way

1. theres a salary cap, so its inherently imposable to buy players. its not our fault your team doesn't want to pay the luxury tax, thats your problem. The deal matched up under the cap, thus its legal and not buying people.

2. So sorry, but making trades is not buying championships. getting the three of them as FA is buying championships. This is good front office work. any team could have archived this with the right contracts/talent to swap.

[wdleehi]

What team has won a title without trades or FA? 

[guava_wrench]

Pretty silly idea in NBA. The closest a team ever came to buying a title was LA with Malone and Payton -- and they lost! With the cap and trade rules in the NBA, you can't buy championships. Pretty much baseball only is the sport where championships are bought.

We traded assets. This is nothing new. Denver traded assets for Iverson, Dallas traded for Kidd, LA traded for Gasol, Phx traded for Shaq.

The only difference between the Celtics and Detroit is that we traded for 2 of our starters in 1 offseason, while Detroit picking up Wallace, Rip, Billups, and BWallace happened over many seasons.

Considering NONE of our starters were picked up as free agents, the "title buying" theory is nonsense.

[celticmaestro]

now(reputation wise).
Do you guys feel if the celts win this year(never again after that)people will look back and not really remember our great team effort and defense compared to that we had three super stars so it was given we won??

i feel that, regardless of the outcome this year, we'll be there or there abouts next year and the year after. the pistons have been labelled a "great defensive team" in recent history despite their one title, and this year we've been so much better defensively that i find it impossible for anyone to ignore this achievment.

i also like when you said "if" - this one isn't over yet folks.

tommy point for the post.

[Redz]

Pretty silly idea in NBA. The closest a team ever came to buying a title was LA with Malone and Payton -- and they lost! With the cap and trade rules in the NBA, you can't buy championships. Pretty much baseball only is the sport where championships are bought.

We traded assets. This is nothing new. Denver traded assets for Iverson, Dallas traded for Kidd, LA traded for Gasol, Phx traded for Shaq.

The only difference between the Celtics and Detroit is that we traded for 2 of our starters in 1 offseason, while Detroit picking up Wallace, Rip, Billups, and BWallace happened over many seasons.

Considering NONE of our starters were picked up as free agents, the "title buying" theory is nonsense.

ASSETS?  The Lakers traded for a Grizzlies financial deficit in Gasol, but really didn't part with much in the way of assets.

[Quetzalcoatl]

We're 5th in total salary, after the Mavericks (1), NY Knicks (2), Nuggets (3), and the Cavaliers (4).  I would like to point out that 6 is the Blazers and 7 is the Heat.  So three of the top 7 didn't make the playoffs, and the #1 and #3 teams didn't make it out of the first round.  Lakers are #8 so one of the top 8 salaried teams is going to win, but it's not like money is as big of an advantage as smart team planning.  The Jazz are #26.

[guava_wrench]

Pretty silly idea in NBA. The closest a team ever came to buying a title was LA with Malone and Payton -- and they lost! With the cap and trade rules in the NBA, you can't buy championships. Pretty much baseball only is the sport where championships are bought.

We traded assets. This is nothing new. Denver traded assets for Iverson, Dallas traded for Kidd, LA traded for Gasol, Phx traded for Shaq.

The only difference between the Celtics and Detroit is that we traded for 2 of our starters in 1 offseason, while Detroit picking up Wallace, Rip, Billups, and BWallace happened over many seasons.

Considering NONE of our starters were picked up as free agents, the "title buying" theory is nonsense.

ASSETS?  The Lakers traded for a Grizzlies financial deficit in Gasol, but really didn't part with much in the way of assets.

While your comment is irrelevant to the point of my post, it actually points out how we were able to buy championships in Red's prime.

Getting players for the promise of the Ice Capades is much more like buying a championship then anything we did this year.

Besides that, Gasol isn't bringing a championship, nor are Kidd, Shaq, or AI. The point was that it is common practice to trade younger players for more veteran and established players in hopes of them being the piece that makes the difference.

[Steve Weinman]

Yep, in addition, anything after Messersmith-McNally (and corresponding turning points in basketball -- my brain seems to be short-circuiting on NBA labor history right about now) should be off the books 

When the players start playing for free, I'll take this sort of complaint a tad more seriously.  Until then, I'll maintain that winning much of anything seems a difficult proposition without spending a few bucks here and there.

-sw

[Chief]

Pretty silly idea in NBA. The closest a team ever came to buying a title was LA with Malone and Payton -- and they lost! With the cap and trade rules in the NBA, you can't buy championships. Pretty much baseball only is the sport where championships are bought.

We traded assets. This is nothing new. Denver traded assets for Iverson, Dallas traded for Kidd, LA traded for Gasol, Phx traded for Shaq.

The only difference between the Celtics and Detroit is that we traded for 2 of our starters in 1 offseason, while Detroit picking up Wallace, Rip, Billups, and BWallace happened over many seasons.

Considering NONE of our starters were picked up as free agents, the "title buying" theory is nonsense.

ASSETS?  The Lakers traded for a Grizzlies financial deficit in Gasol, but really didn't part with much in the way of assets.

The Celtics/Hawks helped send Rasheed Wallace to the Pistons for a couple of ham sandwiches. That's how Detroit got to be an Eastern Conference power.

[Steve Weinman]

Pretty silly idea in NBA. The closest a team ever came to buying a title was LA with Malone and Payton -- and they lost! With the cap and trade rules in the NBA, you can't buy championships. Pretty much baseball only is the sport where championships are bought.

We traded assets. This is nothing new. Denver traded assets for Iverson, Dallas traded for Kidd, LA traded for Gasol, Phx traded for Shaq.

The only difference between the Celtics and Detroit is that we traded for 2 of our starters in 1 offseason, while Detroit picking up Wallace, Rip, Billups, and BWallace happened over many seasons.

Considering NONE of our starters were picked up as free agents, the "title buying" theory is nonsense.

ASSETS?  The Lakers traded for a Grizzlies financial deficit in Gasol, but really didn't part with much in the way of assets.

The Celtics/Hawks helped send Rasheed Wallace to the Pistons for a couple of ham sandwiches. That's how Detroit got to be an Eastern Conference power.

I don't mean to nitpick, but at "couple of ham sandwiches," Chief, you may run the risk of vastly overstating the Celtics' return on that deal (with my sincerest apologies to any remaining fans of the Chucky Atkins rental). 

TP, good point.

-sw

[Redz]

Pretty silly idea in NBA. The closest a team ever came to buying a title was LA with Malone and Payton -- and they lost! With the cap and trade rules in the NBA, you can't buy championships. Pretty much baseball only is the sport where championships are bought.

We traded assets. This is nothing new. Denver traded assets for Iverson, Dallas traded for Kidd, LA traded for Gasol, Phx traded for Shaq.

The only difference between the Celtics and Detroit is that we traded for 2 of our starters in 1 offseason, while Detroit picking up Wallace, Rip, Billups, and BWallace happened over many seasons.

Considering NONE of our starters were picked up as free agents, the "title buying" theory is nonsense.

ASSETS?  The Lakers traded for a Grizzlies financial deficit in Gasol, but really didn't part with much in the way of assets.

While your comment is irrelevant to the point of my post, it actually points out how we were able to buy championships in Red's prime.

Getting players for the promise of the Ice Capades is much more like buying a championship then anything we did this year.

Besides that, Gasol isn't bringing a championship, nor are Kidd, Shaq, or AI. The point was that it is common practice to trade younger players for more veteran and established players in hopes of them being the piece that makes the difference.

I think the general notion of "buying" a championship infers building solely by spending money, not parting with talent, whether purely perceived or not,  or picks.  Say what you want about Red swindling other teams in trades, but he was never doing it without a firm eye on a financial budget. 

The Lakers/Grizz deal was largely a financial one.  The Grizz were not swept away by the prospect of Javaris Crittendon turning into a star or Kwaeme Brown turning his career around.

Common perception amongst the pundits heading into this series was that Gasol was going to help the Lakers to a title.  They've had the league's best record since his acquisition and zipped through their conference playoffs.  So, if the Celts win one more game he will not have brought a championship, no, but he will have instantly filled a gaping hole on their roster and made them a favorite (in all minds but our own seemingly) to win the title.

[Cry Baby]

I want to see the Celtics to win now during my lifetime... It has been so long and overdue...  I do not care who they bring in, as long as the team is able to compete for the crown... I'm not content just pushing for the play-offs with a roster filled with rookies and sophomores...

[Roy Hobbs]

Out of curiosity, how did the mid-90s Rockets team buy a title?  The first Finals team was mostly home grown, as I remember, and the second one added Drexler mid-season.  Not exactly an off-season spending spree.  Now, they later went out and added Barkley, and then Pippen, but those teams never won.

I think the "buying" a championship thing is ridiculous.  The Celtics went out and made intelligent moves in the off-season.  If money was all it took to win a title, it would be New York vs. Dallas every year in the Finals.