When can we say that Ainge had a terrible offseason?

[angryguy77]

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

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

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

I dont see how we are not in agreement. The bench has not played as well as they had hoped the would. We both agree that they thought they would have played better this season compared to last, but they have yet to do that consistantly. Now he had to add and make changes to what he initialy put together this year. At the end of the day he improved the team and gave it the best chance to succeed. We can argue all day as to who he should have picked up in the offseason, but my question to everyone on this topic is: Do we or do we not have as good as if not better chance to win it all this year than our rivals? I believe the answer is yes and to me that means the man did his job. Hes not perfect, but we really dont have that much to complain about compared to the other fans in the league.

[BballTim]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

  Isn't Skinner like 6'8 or so? The point of the move was to get more height for certain matchups. Is Skinner really much of an upgrade over Davis at this point?

[BballTim]

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

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

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

I dont see how we are not in agreement. The bench has not played as well as they had hoped the would. We both agree that they thought they would have played better this season compared to last, but they have yet to do that consistantly. Now he had to add and make changes to what he initialy put together this year. At the end of the day he improved the team and gave it the best chance to succeed. We can argue all day as to who he should have picked up in the offseason, but my question to everyone on this topic is: Do we or do we not have as good as if not better chance to win it all this year than our rivals? I believe the answer is yes and to me that means the man did his job. Hes not perfect, but we really dont have that much to complain about compared to the other fans in the league.

  Last year we put together one of the best seasons in the history of the league. Not the best, but extremely good. I think "as good as last year" was a reasonable goal.

[moiso]

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

You're just assuming stuff. If you're going to say something is a bad move, you better bring concrete evidence. You can't simply say that Ainge should've done something when for all we know he didn't have a chance of doing so (or maybe he did and the player didn't accept you just don't know). You're also playing a lot of the "in hindsight" game. Fact is that that he was signed for 1.7 million a year, that's all we have to go on.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Well, he was a benchwarmer for the worst team in the NBA.  Now he's supposed to play a role for the champs.  That's kind of backwards.  Hopefully we find that, kind of like Scal, Moore does little things that don't show up in the stats.  Because he certainly won't put up decent numbers in a box score.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Well, he was a benchwarmer for the worst team in the NBA.  Now he's supposed to play a role for the champs.  That's kind of backwards.  Hopefully we find that, kind of like Scal, Moore does little things that don't show up in the stats.  Because he certainly won't put up decent numbers in a box score.

From accounts from apparently "people in the know", Mikki Moores playing time had little to do with his play and more to do the team wanting to play and develop younger players.

Also, if we're going to play this game... Elson and Skinner weren't playing much more than Mikki, if more at all, and their teams suck also.

[moiso]

All 3 players are pretty equivalent as far as I'm conscerned.  They are all pretty much the bottom of the barrell as far as talent level. 

[winsomme]

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

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

the problem Bud is the expectations...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Players" refers to the fact that there was more than one player of comparable talent to Moore already available...

If you look back through the posts you'll see that my point on Moore is that if you were going  to target a player of Moore's skill level, there were options ("players") available then.

the reason to wait for buyouts was to get someone with more impact...

so my feeling is that they should have stuck to that plan and held out to see if someone else came available and angle for  them.

hey, maybe Moore will do the trick. I certainly hope so. but i am worried about him getting pushed around in the playoffs...

[BballTim]

the reason to wait for buyouts was to get someone with more impact...

so my feeling is that they should have stuck to that plan and held out to see if someone else came available and angle for  them.

  This is your interpretation of the reason to wait for a buyout. It's just another way to add players to your lineup. One of the advantages (which you're not seeing) is the flexibility it adds. Ainge got to watch the team for half a year and then choose which spots to fill out with veterans.

[winsomme]

the reason to wait for buyouts was to get someone with more impact...

so my feeling is that they should have stuck to that plan and held out to see if someone else came available and angle for  them.

  This is your interpretation of the reason to wait for a buyout. It's just another way to add players to your lineup. One of the advantages (which you're not seeing) is the flexibility it adds. Ainge got to watch the team for half a year and then choose which spots to fill out with veterans.

the spots are the same now as they were in the off season....if anything, the biggest need has been harder to fill with the buyout strategy because there aren't wings coming available...

another reason to target "impact" players because if you don't fill the biggest need, at least go after the best players..

hey maybe, Smith and Gooden won't get bought out. that certainly would make the Moore signing a better move...

[BudweiserCeltic]

According to who was wing help our biggest need?


Ah, if Gooden and Smith don't get bought, it suddenly becomes a better move? Things don't work that way.

What about if we stop crying about this UNTIL they're bought out (if they get bought out). As of right now, you're really complaining about nothing.

[winsomme]

According to who was wing help our biggest need?


Ah, if Gooden and Smith don't get bought, it suddenly becomes a better move? Things don't work that way.

What about if we stop crying about this UNTIL they're bought out (if they get bought out). As of right now, you're really complaining about nothing.

well, since we had two backup PGs and three backup bigs and no backup 3s....

and i acknowledged that at the time of the Moore move, if other players were not bought out it makes the move better. IMO it was worth the gamble just based on the nature of the strategy...

[BudweiserCeltic]

Backup Center and backup PG that we had were an illusion. You're also ignoring TA and Scal, however flawed they are as a 3. But if you're going to assume that we actually had some backup PGs and backup centers, then you have to include TA and Scal when considering 3's.

[BballTim]

the reason to wait for buyouts was to get someone with more impact...

so my feeling is that they should have stuck to that plan and held out to see if someone else came available and angle for  them.

  This is your interpretation of the reason to wait for a buyout. It's just another way to add players to your lineup. One of the advantages (which you're not seeing) is the flexibility it adds. Ainge got to watch the team for half a year and then choose which spots to fill out with veterans.

the spots are the same now as they were in the off season....if anything, the biggest need has been harder to fill with the buyout strategy because there aren't wings coming available...

another reason to target "impact" players because if you don't fill the biggest need, at least go after the best players..

hey maybe, Smith and Gooden won't get bought out. that certainly would make the Moore signing a better move...

  Whatever. He could have been looking for a bigger backup sf, he could have decided that we didn't have a decent backup 2, if BBD wasn't hitting at a decent clip from the outside we could be looking for more outside shooting. Injuries could have occurred.

  Targeting "impact" players isn't really a strategy. It's a best case scenario that you hope for but don't plan on. It's like when my company decides that our strategy should be to target big customers that will buy a ton of our products. Like we're the only ones in the industry to think of that... If you think that the best way to build your team is to pass on serviceable players that can help your team in favor of "impact" players that may or may not become available and may or may not choose your team if they do, then fine.

[BballTim]

According to who was wing help our biggest need?


Ah, if Gooden and Smith don't get bought, it suddenly becomes a better move? Things don't work that way.

What about if we stop crying about this UNTIL they're bought out (if they get bought out). As of right now, you're really complaining about nothing.

well, since we had two backup PGs and three backup bigs and no backup 3s....

and i acknowledged that at the time of the Moore move, if other players were not bought out it makes the move better. IMO it was worth the gamble just based on the nature of the strategy...

  We have injuries, but don't we have 3 backup 3s (TA, Walker, sometimes Scal)?

[winsomme]

According to who was wing help our biggest need?


Ah, if Gooden and Smith don't get bought, it suddenly becomes a better move? Things don't work that way.

What about if we stop crying about this UNTIL they're bought out (if they get bought out). As of right now, you're really complaining about nothing.

well, since we had two backup PGs and three backup bigs and no backup 3s....

and i acknowledged that at the time of the Moore move, if other players were not bought out it makes the move better. IMO it was worth the gamble just based on the nature of the strategy...

  We have injuries, but don't we have 3 backup 3s (TA, Walker, sometimes Scal)?

we lost Pose and PJ from last years bench that leaves vacancies at those positions...