Report: Smith wanted Boston

[winsomme]

The problem cordobes is that the addition of Moore doesn't take us off the race for Smith or Gooden anymore than having Skinner since the beginning of the season would have. The roster situation would've been the same as it pertains the possibility of signing Smith or Gooden. Our buying power would've been the same. Our willingness to go after them should be the same, as we would have a roster of big men of Powe, Davis, Skinner/Moore.

How is having Skinner over Moore get us in the race of Smith and Gooden?

because in order to sign Moore we had to promise him a spot in the rotation...

Blah, completely irrelevant to this particular discussion and overall. As I explained in the other thread, one thing doesn't lead to the other. But let's not discuss this here. No need to have the same discussion in 2-4 separate threads.

Bud, here's the quote from the Aldridge article:

However, the Celtics -- the team that Smith most wanted to play for this season -- have dropped out of the bidding after signing veteran big man Mikki Moore last week, according to the source. Moore had been released by Sacramento after the Kings had acquired several players -- including, ironically, Gooden, who came from the Bulls in a trade that sent guard John Salmons and center Brad Miller to Chicago for Gooden and forward Andres Nocioni.

"Boston's out of it," the source said.

signing Moore took us out of the bidding for Smith based on the commitment we made to Moore.

Again, irrelevant to the particular discussion I'm having with cordobes. And Aldrige can suck it.

but it's not irrelevant. you're claiming that having Moore or Skinner leaves you in the same position in regard to signing Smith...

but it would not be the same because having Skinner would not take you out of the running for Smith, but having Moore does..

[BudweiserCeltic]

The problem cordobes is that the addition of Moore doesn't take us off the race for Smith or Gooden anymore than having Skinner since the beginning of the season would have. The roster situation would've been the same as it pertains the possibility of signing Smith or Gooden. Our buying power would've been the same. Our willingness to go after them should be the same, as we would have a roster of big men of Powe, Davis, Skinner/Moore.

How is having Skinner over Moore get us in the race of Smith and Gooden?

because in order to sign Moore we had to promise him a spot in the rotation...

Blah, completely irrelevant to this particular discussion and overall. As I explained in the other thread, one thing doesn't lead to the other. But let's not discuss this here. No need to have the same discussion in 2-4 separate threads.

Bud, here's the quote from the Aldridge article:

However, the Celtics -- the team that Smith most wanted to play for this season -- have dropped out of the bidding after signing veteran big man Mikki Moore last week, according to the source. Moore had been released by Sacramento after the Kings had acquired several players -- including, ironically, Gooden, who came from the Bulls in a trade that sent guard John Salmons and center Brad Miller to Chicago for Gooden and forward Andres Nocioni.

"Boston's out of it," the source said.

signing Moore took us out of the bidding for Smith based on the commitment we made to Moore.

Again, irrelevant to the particular discussion I'm having with cordobes. And Aldrige can suck it.

but it's not irrelevant. you're claiming that having Moore or Skinner leaves you in the same position in regard to signing Smith...

but it would not be the same because having Skinner would not take you out of the running for Smith, but having Moore does..

This doesn't make much sense and it's filled with baseless assumptions.

[winsomme]

The problem cordobes is that the addition of Moore doesn't take us off the race for Smith or Gooden anymore than having Skinner since the beginning of the season would have. The roster situation would've been the same as it pertains the possibility of signing Smith or Gooden. Our buying power would've been the same. Our willingness to go after them should be the same, as we would have a roster of big men of Powe, Davis, Skinner/Moore.

How is having Skinner over Moore get us in the race of Smith and Gooden?

because in order to sign Moore we had to promise him a spot in the rotation...

Blah, completely irrelevant to this particular discussion and overall. As I explained in the other thread, one thing doesn't lead to the other. But let's not discuss this here. No need to have the same discussion in 2-4 separate threads.

Bud, here's the quote from the Aldridge article:

However, the Celtics -- the team that Smith most wanted to play for this season -- have dropped out of the bidding after signing veteran big man Mikki Moore last week, according to the source. Moore had been released by Sacramento after the Kings had acquired several players -- including, ironically, Gooden, who came from the Bulls in a trade that sent guard John Salmons and center Brad Miller to Chicago for Gooden and forward Andres Nocioni.

"Boston's out of it," the source said.

signing Moore took us out of the bidding for Smith based on the commitment we made to Moore.

Again, irrelevant to the particular discussion I'm having with cordobes. And Aldrige can suck it.

but it's not irrelevant. you're claiming that having Moore or Skinner leaves you in the same position in regard to signing Smith...

but it would not be the same because having Skinner would not take you out of the running for Smith, but having Moore does..

This doesn't make much sense and it's filled with baseless assumptions.

it's pretty straightforward. which assumptions are baseless....?

[BudweiserCeltic]

The assumption that the reason that we're out of the running for Smith is because of some promise to Moore, when I've explained that one thing doesn't lead to the other. And that's just one.

[winsomme]

The assumption that the reason that we're out of the running for Smith is because of some promise to Moore, when I've explained that one thing doesn't lead to the other. And that's just one.

it's not baseless. You may not agree with the source. but it was flatly stated in the article. signing Moore took us out of the running for Smith.

you have every right to disagree with what the source is claiming, but it's not baseless to now argue that that is the case.

[BudweiserCeltic]

The assumption that the reason that we're out of the running for Smith is because of some promise to Moore, when I've explained that one thing doesn't lead to the other. And that's just one.

it's not baseless. You may not agree with the source. but it was flatly stated in the article. signing Moore took us out of the running for Smith.

you have every right to disagree with what the source is claiming, but you can't call it baseless.

For one, because our roster is full right now for starters. Maybe the reason we're out of it is because Ainge is not willing to open up a roster space by waiving someone to get Smith in. How is this any different that having Skinner and having our roster full?

[winsomme]

The assumption that the reason that we're out of the running for Smith is because of some promise to Moore, when I've explained that one thing doesn't lead to the other. And that's just one.

it's not baseless. You may not agree with the source. but it was flatly stated in the article. signing Moore took us out of the running for Smith.

you have every right to disagree with what the source is claiming, but you can't call it baseless.

For one, because our roster is full right now for starters. Maybe the reason we're out of it is because Ainge is not willing to open up a roster space by waiving someone to get Smith in. How is this any different that having Skinner and having our roster full?

because the reason for signing Smith if you had Skinner is if Skinner isn't doing the job.

i watched the interview with Moore, he said he was thinking about signing with Dallas but the Cs promised him a spot and not be buried on the bench...

if you go to Smith right now and he says i want to play if i come to the Cs, how much credibility do the Cs have telling Smith that he's in if they just blatantly lied to Moore.

[BudweiserCeltic]

The assumption that the reason that we're out of the running for Smith is because of some promise to Moore, when I've explained that one thing doesn't lead to the other. And that's just one.

it's not baseless. You may not agree with the source. but it was flatly stated in the article. signing Moore took us out of the running for Smith.

you have every right to disagree with what the source is claiming, but you can't call it baseless.

For one, because our roster is full right now for starters. Maybe the reason we're out of it is because Ainge is not willing to open up a roster space by waiving someone to get Smith in. How is this any different that having Skinner and having our roster full?

because the reason for signing Smith if you had Skinner is if Skinner isn't doing the job.

i watched the interview with Moore, he said he was thinking about signing with Dallas but the Cs promised him a spot and not be buried on the bench...

if you go to Smith right now and he says i want to play if i come to the Cs, how much credibility do the Cs have telling Smith that he's in if they just blatantly lied to Moore.

Why do you keep bringing this up. I told you that adding Smith doesn't mean what you're insinuating about Moores role.

And if Skinner isn't doing his job, then what good is he for us then? Wouldn't we be then be as "desparate" for someone like Moore? And how would we have gotten Moore... by releasing/trading Skinner away... kinda like how we did with POB? What if Skinner is indeed working... then what, who would Ainge be willing to waive etc.?

[Mr October]

The assumption that the reason that we're out of the running for Smith is because of some promise to Moore, when I've explained that one thing doesn't lead to the other. And that's just one.

it's not baseless. You may not agree with the source. but it was flatly stated in the article. signing Moore took us out of the running for Smith.

you have every right to disagree with what the source is claiming, but you can't call it baseless.

For one, because our roster is full right now for starters. Maybe the reason we're out of it is because Ainge is not willing to open up a roster space by waiving someone to get Smith in. How is this any different that having Skinner and having our roster full?

because the reason for signing Smith if you had Skinner is if Skinner isn't doing the job.

i watched the interview with Moore, he said he was thinking about signing with Dallas but the Cs promised him a spot and not be buried on the bench...

if you go to Smith right now and he says i want to play if i come to the Cs, how much credibility do the Cs have telling Smith that he's in if they just blatantly lied to Moore.

In order to stay credible and have the trust of other future discount signings, the C's need to stick with Moore.

Plus I'm just not convinced the difference between Moore and Smith is that great. Both aren't beasts that can protect the rim. Instead they are tall, mobile players that can hit jumpshots.

Would I rather have smith? yes. But i'll roll with Moore.

[winsomme]

The assumption that the reason that we're out of the running for Smith is because of some promise to Moore, when I've explained that one thing doesn't lead to the other. And that's just one.

it's not baseless. You may not agree with the source. but it was flatly stated in the article. signing Moore took us out of the running for Smith.

you have every right to disagree with what the source is claiming, but you can't call it baseless.

For one, because our roster is full right now for starters. Maybe the reason we're out of it is because Ainge is not willing to open up a roster space by waiving someone to get Smith in. How is this any different that having Skinner and having our roster full?

because the reason for signing Smith if you had Skinner is if Skinner isn't doing the job.

i watched the interview with Moore, he said he was thinking about signing with Dallas but the Cs promised him a spot and not be buried on the bench...

if you go to Smith right now and he says i want to play if i come to the Cs, how much credibility do the Cs have telling Smith that he's in if they just blatantly lied to Moore.

Why do you keep bringing this up. I told you that adding Smith doesn't mean what you're insinuating about Moores role.

And if Skinner isn't doing his job, then what good is he for us then? Wouldn't be then be as desparate for someone like Moore? And how would we have gotten Moore... by releasing/trading Skinner away... kinda like how we did with POB?

the point, Bud, is that you don't go after Moore if you have Skinner. Moore is not an upgrade over Skinner. Moore is an upgrade over POB.

that's the difference.

having Skinner allows you to wait for someone better than Moore. having Moore means you can't go after someone better because you have made your commitment...

[KungPoweChicken]

Can we make a few more Joe Smith threads please? I don't believe there is enough of them.

[Quinn]

its in the past.
Being all fussy over what he wanted isn't worth it.
We need to make do with what we have.

[cordobes]

The problem cordobes is that the addition of Moore doesn't take us off the race for Smith or Gooden anymore than having Skinner since the beginning of the season would have. The roster situation would've been the same as it pertains the possibility of signing Smith or Gooden. Our buying power would've been the same. Our willingness to go after them should be the same, as we would have a roster of big men of Powe, Davis, Skinner/Moore.

How is having Skinner over Moore get us in the race of Smith and Gooden?

So, you do think that Ainge is going to try to sign Smith? You don't believe that having signed Moore a week ago inhibits him of releasing the guy now, when he wouldn't be even able to sign for a playoffs team? Or that Moore and his agent wouldn't like to see his minutes reduced to 0? Or that the fact that we already waved POB (or traded him after paying him most of his salary) is also detrimental?

I'm sorry, but the idea that signing Moore doesn't imply we aren't going after Smith could only germinate in this site.

What's exactly your theory then? That Ainge lost his mind and believes Moore is better than Smith or Gooden?

[Lucky17]

Can we change the title to this thread? Put it in quotes, or something?

Until I hear directly from Smith that he wanted to come here, I have a hard time believing it. He played things very coy in the time following the rescinded Chandler trade; if he wanted to be here, he'd have been less equivocal about it.

[cordobes]

Budweiser, maybe if you thing that you'd have Skinner instead of POB (and not Moore) makes it easier for you to understand. That would have changed the entire approach to the waivers situation - beggars can't be choosers, but we didn't need to be beggars.