Report: Smith wanted Boston

[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 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...

So if Moore is not an upgrade over Skinner, that means that in your eyes Skinner is better than Moore, and more deserving of a roster spot. How does that help us land Smith? Whatever.

I'm not going to continue this dance with you on this issue winsomme. There's a clear logic missing here, and a ton of speculation going on about hypotheticals with some wierd assumptions going on that really lead to nothing.

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?

Now you're twisting our discussion around. If Ainge wanted to go after Smith right now, he could... that's all I've said. His chances of landing him would be in question but I don't see how they would improve by having Skinner.
Again, how is this different to having Skinner instead of Moore as it pertains signing Smith? You kinda sidestepped the question.

Budweiser, maybe if you thing that you'd have Skinner instead of POB (and not Moore) makes it easier for you to understand.

Isn't that the assumption we've been using so far? That had we signed Skinner we wouldn't have signed POB?

[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...

So if Moore is not an upgrade over Skinner, that means that in your eyes Skinner is better than Moore, and more deserving of a roster spot. How does that help us land Smith? Whatever.

It helps because you can't cut Moore a week after you signed him preventing him from signing on with another team for the playoffs to make room for Smith.

It also helps in the credibility department because with Skinner you're not going after Smith after having just promised minutes to another front court player.

if you want to disagree with the logic, fine. but you can't call it baseless.

[indeedproceed]

This bums me out.

[winsomme]

let's put it this way, if the Cs did go after Smith at this point, I wouldn't feel good about it....

[BballTim]

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...

  What good does Skinner really do for us? He's pretty much the same size as Davis and Powe and isn't the answer at backup center. I doubt he'd even get off the bench over Davis all the time. Having him doesn't make us less interested in finding length off the bench. He doesn't make us pass on Moore to wait for Smith and more than BBD and Powe do.

[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 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...

So if Moore is not an upgrade over Skinner, that means that in your eyes Skinner is better than Moore, and more deserving of a roster spot. How does that help us land Smith? Whatever.

It helps because you can't cut Moore a week after you signed him preventing him from signing on with another team for the playoffs to make room for Smith.

Ah, so you're fine with cutting someone like Skinner now? Or would you have cut him earlier without assurances that we would land Smith... because Smith just got bought out pretty much at the time limit for waivers. And even with all these manouvers, I still think he would've chosen the Cavs over us... especially once Wallace got injured. What prevented us from waiving someone like Pruitt if Smith would be willing to sign with us? Also, I very much doubt that Skinner would've been waived if he was with us just because he brings some usefulness and big-men depth.

It also helps in the credibility department because with Skinner you're not going after Smith after having just promised minutes to another front court player.

Again with the same story. Have you even read what I've said about this issue the twenty times you've brought it up? This is why I don't want to discuss this anymore.

[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...

  What good does Skinner really do for us? He's pretty much the same size as Davis and Powe and isn't the answer at backup center. I doubt he'd even get off the bench over Davis all the time. Having him doesn't make us less interested in finding length off the bench. He doesn't make us pass on Moore to wait for Smith and more than BBD and Powe do.

Skinner is more legit at C and is a similar talent level to Moore.

anyway, I'm not arguing for Skinner. I was just trying to help explain cor's point why signing Skinner might have enabled a run a Smith....

[winsomme]

It also helps in the credibility department because with Skinner you're not going after Smith after having just promised minutes to another front court player.

Again with the same story. Have you even read what I've said about this issue the twenty times you've brought it up? This is why I don't want to discuss this anymore.

yeah. you don't buy it. i get that. but it doesn't make the point baseless.

[BudweiserCeltic]

It also helps in the credibility department because with Skinner you're not going after Smith after having just promised minutes to another front court player.

Again with the same story. Have you even read what I've said about this issue the twenty times you've brought it up? This is why I don't want to discuss this anymore.

yeah. you don't buy it. i get that. but it doesn't make the point baseless.

That I don't buy what? All I've said is that just because we sign Smith it doesn't have to lead to a reduced role or a break of a "promise" that might or might not exist with Moore. There's nothing for me to buy or not. I'm just not jumping to the conclusion that signing Smith means that Moore will start eating the bench or something. That Doc or Ainge can't keep that promise with Smith in here.

[winsomme]

It also helps in the credibility department because with Skinner you're not going after Smith after having just promised minutes to another front court player.

Again with the same story. Have you even read what I've said about this issue the twenty times you've brought it up? This is why I don't want to discuss this anymore.

yeah. you don't buy it. i get that. but it doesn't make the point baseless.

That I don't buy what? All I've said is that just because we sign Smith it doesn't have to lead to a reduced role or a break of a "promise" that might or might not exist with Moore. There's nothing for me to buy or not. I'm just not jumping to the conclusion that signing Smith means that Moore will start eating the bench or something. That Doc or Ainge can't keep that promise with Smith in here.

fine. if you think there are minutes for 6 front court players, then maybe we could still get Smith...

[BudweiserCeltic]

It also helps in the credibility department because with Skinner you're not going after Smith after having just promised minutes to another front court player.

Again with the same story. Have you even read what I've said about this issue the twenty times you've brought it up? This is why I don't want to discuss this anymore.

yeah. you don't buy it. i get that. but it doesn't make the point baseless.

That I don't buy what? All I've said is that just because we sign Smith it doesn't have to lead to a reduced role or a break of a "promise" that might or might not exist with Moore. There's nothing for me to buy or not. I'm just not jumping to the conclusion that signing Smith means that Moore will start eating the bench or something. That Doc or Ainge can't keep that promise with Smith in here.

fine. if you think there are minutes for 6 front court players, then maybe we could still get Smith...

Just as you can reduce Moore's role, you could reduce Powe and Davis. Not everyone has to play. Just saying that it doesn't has to be at Moore's expense.

[winsomme]

It also helps in the credibility department because with Skinner you're not going after Smith after having just promised minutes to another front court player.

Again with the same story. Have you even read what I've said about this issue the twenty times you've brought it up? This is why I don't want to discuss this anymore.

yeah. you don't buy it. i get that. but it doesn't make the point baseless.

That I don't buy what? All I've said is that just because we sign Smith it doesn't have to lead to a reduced role or a break of a "promise" that might or might not exist with Moore. There's nothing for me to buy or not. I'm just not jumping to the conclusion that signing Smith means that Moore will start eating the bench or something. That Doc or Ainge can't keep that promise with Smith in here.

fine. if you think there are minutes for 6 front court players, then maybe we could still get Smith...

Just as you can reduce Moore's role, you could reduce Powe and Davis. Not everyone has to play. Just saying that it doesn't has to be at Moore's expense.

it just doesn't happen that you play 6 front court players legit minutes - reduced minutes or not.

If Smith came onboard someone would be out of the rotation.

Smith and Moore bring the same skills. The player that would lose minutes if Smith came here is Moore -  in effect breaking the promise to him by burying him on the bench.

if you think otherwise, i certainly am not going to change your mind. but it seems pretty straightforward to me...

[winsomme]

anyway, the overall point is that the Moore signing took us out of the running for Smith. what does it matter whether it was because there were no minutes for him or because Danny didn't want to cut another player.

any way you slice it, the Moore signing took us out of the running according to the report.

[BigAlTheFuture]

My goodness.. Ainge blew it. Smith or Gooden would have been a lot better than Moore.

[BballTim]

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...

  What good does Skinner really do for us? He's pretty much the same size as Davis and Powe and isn't the answer at backup center. I doubt he'd even get off the bench over Davis all the time. Having him doesn't make us less interested in finding length off the bench. He doesn't make us pass on Moore to wait for Smith and more than BBD and Powe do.

Skinner is more legit at C and is a similar talent level to Moore.

anyway, I'm not arguing for Skinner. I was just trying to help explain cor's point why signing Skinner might have enabled a run a Smith....

  Skinner's a 6'8" or so center, just like BBD. He does nothing to satisfy our need for height.