The Moore signing was a mistake; Danny should have waited (split).

[cornbreadsmart]

we need to get some of these people some of those classic "i hate danny ainge" t shirts.wow.  so it's a mistake signing moore when someone else could have grabbed him when all indications were smith either would not be bought out or could also sign with cleveland. they could give him more cash too right? there was no word at all about him wanting boston over cleveland before ,right? this is the mistake he's getting bashed for here?

[Roy Hobbs]

we need to get some of these people some of those classic "i hate danny ainge" t shirts.wow.  so it's a mistake signing moore when someone else could have grabbed him when all indications were smith either would not be bought out or could also sign with cleveland. they could give him more cash too right? there was no word at all about him wanting boston over cleveland before ,right? this is the mistake he's getting bashed for here?

Is it not possible to disagree with a decision that Danny Ainge makes without "hating" him?  Has there never been a single Danny Ainge decision that you disagreed with?  How did you feel about the draft pick of Marcus Banks, or about the Raef era? 

Every GM makes mistakes, even the good ones.  Danny isn't infallible, and is subject to appropriate criticism.

[CoachBo]

Hobbs points out - correctly - that Danny jumped the gun with Smith and Gooden available. Either is clearly preferable to Moore.

I happen to agree.

The notion that Danny never makes mistakes is simply not based in fact. It's more Internet fantasy.

[KelticFan]

Yes, Danny made a mistake. However only in hindsight.

Hindsight is 20 20.

I disagree that it's hindsight.  Many posters said that Danny should wait a week to see if Smith was bought out.  I can probably point you to 50 posts on the subject if you guys would like.  This was completely foreseeable. 

Indeed, it was completely foreseeable as a possibility but it does not assign it a probability. One could claim that it was assured but many that discussed it as a possibility also alluded that it may not happen. Joe Smith, Scott Brooks, Sam Presti and OKC players all indicated that they would like to keep him there. The deal itself didn't get finalized until a few hours before the deadline. Who knows what arrangements between Presti, Dan Fegan, and teams who were interested in Joe Smith were agreed to before Smith was released and how likely it was to happen. Gooden's buyout was labeled a "surprise" which indicates something about its perceived likelihood. Marbury's buyout was rumored to happen many times throughout the year starting at training camp before it actually happened.

Presumably, Danny would have had access to the information we did and more. It's possible that he may have thought that this outcome was not likely, while now in hindsight we know it did occur. Even if Danny thought that there was a reasonable but not certain probability that Smith would get bought out, he may have preferred the certain outcome of Moore to the uncertainty of gambling for Smith and losing out.

The crux of matter may come to one's opinion of the value of Mikki Moore to which there is some disagreement. While this matter will probably (though not necessarily) resolve itself over the next few months, it can be said, if we are to trust the same sources that were discussing the availability of Smith, that the Spurs and Denver among others were suitors for Moore. These teams also had the option of waiting for Smith and yet chose not to do so.

Assigning values, likelihoods and preferences is a not science at this point as far as I know, and it's good because it give us room to debate which is fun. I for one hope that Danny is proven correct in the long run because it would be good for the Celtics and what's good for the Celtics is good for my sanity.

[beantownboy171]

Oh my god, i've been avoiding this blog all day because all these topics are so negative. I get it danny only managed to get us a all-star caliber back up point guard and a hustling 7 foot big man. God we're like a whiny kid on christmas morning who is crying because they only got a few of the toys they wanted. Yes i know we wanted a stretch armstrong, but we'll make do with the G.I. Joe.

We will be fine. The team looks bad right now i know, but so would any of their contending teams if they loose their best player, and key bench players due to injure (yah all give T.A. that title wanna fight about it). But gosh have some faith in the team we have. The difference between joe smith and mikki more is tiny even if there is any.

And anyone who says they wouldn't have second guessed danny if he didn't sign mikki moore and joe smith didn't get bought out are full of crap. All this second guessing and finger pointing is getting really annoying and needs to stop.

Lets just watch the games and see what happens, that's what makes sports fun, its unpredictable, if everything went perfectly, we signed every good player that came out there and the team meshed perfectly, there's never a bump in the road all year, and we never lose, it wouldn't be entertaining, so just get over it.

[BballTim]

Hobbs points out - correctly - that Danny jumped the gun with Smith and Gooden available. Either is clearly preferable to Moore.

I happen to agree.

The notion that Danny never makes mistakes is simply not based in fact. It's more Internet fantasy.

  Joe Smith may or may not be a better player that Moore but he's more a backup pf than a backup c. Same with Gooden. If you're looking for the best of all of the available players it was Marbury.

[KG_ended_Bias]

I dont care who we didnt get, I just never liked Mikki Moore to start with. And if he was the cause of us not getting someone better than I guess it was a mistake by management. They had to assume that Joe Smith & Drew Gooden was not going to continue to play on those terrible teams. Plus, Robert Horry off of the streets is a upgrade over Moore Bottom Line!

[CoachBo]

Despite all the wishful gushing on this board about adding an All-Star in Marbury, the facts - not the hyperbole - are the guy has not played in a year, isn't an All-Star and wasn't before he stopped playing. He may be an All-Star among the Danny Ainge Public Relations Machine, but not in the rest of ours.

If he turns out to be the best available player at the deadline - which is most assuredly subject to debate, hyperbole aside - then I guess we're going to have to assume that a Joe Smith doesn't help plug up the mess that all of a sudden is the Cavs' front line. Or that Mikki Moore doesn't turn out to be Paddy O'Blount - Good God, what was Ainge thinking? - with more effort. That one's a tad harder for me to swallow than Gooden and his incredible shrinking groin not helping San Antonio.

[winsomme]

Hobbs points out - correctly - that Danny jumped the gun with Smith and Gooden available. Either is clearly preferable to Moore.

I happen to agree.

The notion that Danny never makes mistakes is simply not based in fact. It's more Internet fantasy.

  Joe Smith may or may not be a better player that Moore but he's more a backup pf than a backup c. Same with Gooden. If you're looking for the best of all of the available players it was Marbury.

so you defend the Mar signing because he was the better player, but you defend the Moore signing because he more filled the need?

[nickagneta]

Seems maybe my little conspiracy theory about the Celtics trade of Cassell and a bunch of cash going to Sacramento and POB going to Toronto with Solomon and a bunch more cash going to Sacramento in exchange for two second round draft picks that the Celtics will never see may very well have some legs to it. I haven't confirmed how much money went the Kings way but thought I read somewhere a week ago that it may have been about $500,000 or more.

Considering that they may lose up to $25 million this year (http://www.sacbee.com/kings/story/1612400.html) and that now the Kings are reported cutting back on overtime pay and other expenses (http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/sports/kings/archives/019501.html) who's to say that the Celtics didn't do a back door deal with the Maloofs to get them some severely needed operating capital and a bunch of saved cash by telling Moore that if he accepted a very low buyout that they would instantly pick him up and get him playing time.

I don't think it's entirely out of the question. Sacramento must be hurting big time and the Maloofs could be taking it on the chin in a small market so bad that they need every buck they can get their hands on.

[twentythree9]

Cleveland had more money in the MLE to offer Smith.  Same goes for Gooden and the Spurs.  If the Celts pased on Moore, he would've gone to Denver and we quite possibly wouldn't have gotten Moore, Smith or Gooden; unless Smith or Gooden REALLY wanted to play for the C's, so much so that they'd be willing to take a paycut.

Thus, Danny did the wise thing signing Moore.  It was a calculated move.  If anybody has a gripe with the composition of this team, it can't be because we signed Moore instead of Smith or Gooden.  It's that we don't have a back-up SF, a 6'-7" to 6'-9" guy who can play some D.  That is our achilles' heel!

[BballTim]

Despite all the wishful gushing on this board about adding an All-Star in Marbury, the facts - not the hyperbole - are the guy has not played in a year, isn't an All-Star and wasn't before he stopped playing. He may be an All-Star among the Danny Ainge Public Relations Machine, but not in the rest of ours.

  As opposed to those first team all-nba types like Posey and Smith that you drool over? We know, we know, Ainge killed the Celts. All the other teams got all the good players and we have no chance at the title. We'll probably limp through the regular season well below last year's pace. Anybody who has a more realistic view of the current situation that you do is part of the Danny Ainge Public Relations Machine. If you and many of the other posters feel that Danny did less to help the team with Marbury and Moore than Cleveland did with Smith, more power to you.

[BballTim]

Hobbs points out - correctly - that Danny jumped the gun with Smith and Gooden available. Either is clearly preferable to Moore.

I happen to agree.

The notion that Danny never makes mistakes is simply not based in fact. It's more Internet fantasy.

  Joe Smith may or may not be a better player that Moore but he's more a backup pf than a backup c. Same with Gooden. If you're looking for the best of all of the available players it was Marbury.

so you defend the Mar signing because he was the better player, but you defend the Moore signing because he more filled the need?

  Which part do you disagree with?

[nickagneta]

As much as I think Marbury is a severe head case, I don't think he will be an issue, chemistry-wise. I think Ainge had a horrible off season and did a lousy job putting together a bench. That said, I like both additions and both subtractions that have occurred recently and can't see how looking at this like a Monday morning QB just because Aldridge reports that Smith wanted Boston all along is neccessary or fair. We needed a 5 with length and we needed backcourt help. Danny got it while giving up nothing and getting an All Star quality talent and a hustler that will at least everything he has out on the floor.

I'd wish he would consider bringing in Smith as well. But I don't see that happening.

[CelticG1]

I didn't see any threads up about danny "jumping the gun" after we signed moore. Only after Smith and gooden were bought out. Were there any? Why are people putting Smith on this pedastel anyway, he is not a game changer. I just don't see the infatuation with him. If we had Smith and Cleveland got Moore would it really change that much. Would we suddenly be the clear favorite?