Report: Smith wanted Boston

[BballTim]

Rivers said the C’s might still make a pitch for Smith, but Danny Ainge said that wasn’t going to happen.

“We thought he would get bought out,” Rivers said. “We just didn’t know for sure. We fully believed that eventually they would work it out. We just couldn’t take the gamble waiting.”

So, it seems as though the team had a pretty good chance that this was going to happen.  As many have said all along, the team should have waited.

Well the Spurs waited and didn't sign anyone, but reports were that they had no chance of signing Smith either, since the Cavs have $3.5 million left of there MLE.

People need to realize the difference between the right decision and what would work best for the team.  Sure, Joe Smith would've been a better fit for the Celtics.  But there were too many variables going against them.  1.) He hadn't been bought out yet.  While it seemed pretty likely that he eventually would, it was also even more likely that Moore would be gone by the time that either did or didn't happen 2.) Smith is familiar with the Cavs system.  People can talk about how Smith is friends with KG, but that really doesn't mean much.  There are a lot of friends around the league that don't play together.  At this point in a veteran's career, they like to play where they're comfortable and have a chance at a ring.  3.)  And by far the most important, the Cavs had more money to offer Smith than the Celtics or any other contender.

When you factor in all those variables, it would've been foolish for Danny to hold off on signing Moore and letting him walk to the Mavs, Suns or any other team interested in him.

yeah, but like Doc said today, the reason to not wait was a chance that he wouldn't be bought out.

the chances of him not getting bought out were negligible. He already wasn't playing. He was out of the rotation on  team going absolutely nowhere this season. what possible reason would OKC have to not save money by buying him out?

if you can get to that point, then consider that Smith wanted to come here....

I don't know. I just don't see the big gamble.

  Maybe Smith and Marbury were coming from the same leftover MLE money and they couldn't sign both. Maybe they think that BBD better and Smith/Moore will have a smaller role than PJ had last year. Maybe he's been reading this blog and he knows that we have no shot at the title because he didn't sign Posey, and he screwed the team for years to come because he took a chance on POB.

[CelticsWhat35]

Well the Spurs waited and didn't sign anyone, but reports were that they had no chance of signing Smith either, since the Cavs have $3.5 million left of there MLE.

People need to realize the difference between the right decision and what would work best for the team.  Sure, Joe Smith would've been a better fit for the Celtics.  But there were too many variables going against them.  1.) He hadn't been bought out yet.  While it seemed pretty likely that he eventually would, it was also even more likely that Moore would be gone by the time that either did or didn't happen 2.) Smith is familiar with the Cavs system.  People can talk about how Smith is friends with KG, but that really doesn't mean much.  There are a lot of friends around the league that don't play together.  At this point in a veteran's career, they like to play where they're comfortable and have a chance at a ring.  3.)  And by far the most important, the Cavs had more money to offer Smith than the Celtics or any other contender.

When you factor in all those variables, it would've been foolish for Danny to hold off on signing Moore and letting him walk to the Mavs, Suns or any other team interested in him.

yeah, but like Doc said today, the reason to not wait was a chance that he wouldn't be bought out.

the chances of him not getting bought out were negligible. He already wasn't playing. He was out of the rotation on  team going absolutely nowhere this season. what possible reason would OKC have to not save money by buying him out?

if you can get to that point, then consider that Smith wanted to come here....

I don't know. I just don't see the big gamble.

Well that's one of the points.  What's your take on the other two.  The more important ones.

[winsomme]

Well the Spurs waited and didn't sign anyone, but reports were that they had no chance of signing Smith either, since the Cavs have $3.5 million left of there MLE.

People need to realize the difference between the right decision and what would work best for the team.  Sure, Joe Smith would've been a better fit for the Celtics.  But there were too many variables going against them.  1.) He hadn't been bought out yet.  While it seemed pretty likely that he eventually would, it was also even more likely that Moore would be gone by the time that either did or didn't happen 2.) Smith is familiar with the Cavs system.  People can talk about how Smith is friends with KG, but that really doesn't mean much.  There are a lot of friends around the league that don't play together.  At this point in a veteran's career, they like to play where they're comfortable and have a chance at a ring.  3.)  And by far the most important, the Cavs had more money to offer Smith than the Celtics or any other contender.

When you factor in all those variables, it would've been foolish for Danny to hold off on signing Moore and letting him walk to the Mavs, Suns or any other team interested in him.

yeah, but like Doc said today, the reason to not wait was a chance that he wouldn't be bought out.

the chances of him not getting bought out were negligible. He already wasn't playing. He was out of the rotation on  team going absolutely nowhere this season. what possible reason would OKC have to not save money by buying him out?

if you can get to that point, then consider that Smith wanted to come here....

I don't know. I just don't see the big gamble.

Well that's one of the points.  What's your take on the other two.  The more important ones.

I'm just going off the report that Boston was where he wanted to go.

I'm not denying that CLE had more money or that Smith had ties there. I'm just saying that the reports were that he wanted to come here.

Plus, Smith does have ties here and he also reportedly wasn't too happy about being moved to OKC in the off season..

and yet still, CLE may have had more money, but how much of that more were they really willing to spend when they are already spending nearly 22 million more than us. were they really willing to spend 5-6 million for Smith for the rest of this season?

like was pointed out elsewhere, the team could have used the LLE to sign Mar and then had the entire rest of the MLE (prorated down) to sign Smith. It's not like the offer would have been paltry and for all we know could have been just as much as CLE was willing to do if they didn't want to take on spending the full rest of their MLE doubled by the luxury tax.

[cordobes]

Rivers said the C’s might still make a pitch for Smith, but Danny Ainge said that wasn’t going to happen.

“We thought he would get bought out,” Rivers said. “We just didn’t know for sure. We fully believed that eventually they would work it out. We just couldn’t take the gamble waiting.”

So, it seems as though the team had a pretty good chance that this was going to happen.  As many have said all along, the team should have waited.

That's the point there. I personally believe the C's could afford the gamble, but that's a respectable argument (unlike, say, the hilarious thesis that Moore is as good as Smith or fits a need better).

However, the only reason that argument exists - the reason "we couldn't take the gamble" - is because the team signed O'Bryant instead of someone who would allow the team to take the gamble waiting.

[CelticsWhat35]

like was pointed out elsewhere, the team could have used the LLE to sign Mar and then had the entire rest of the MLE (prorated down) to sign Smith. It's not like the offer would have been paltry and for all we know could have been just as much as CLE was willing to do if they didn't want to take on spending the full rest of their MLE doubled by the luxury tax.

Considering LeBron James once said he could never play with a guy like Stephon Marbury, I don't really think that was ever a consideration.

[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.

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.[/quote]

What exactly am I twisting? I made there the exact same point I've been making through the entire discussion: not having enough serviceable big man depth led to the signing of Moore. Signing Moore means we're out of the race for Smith and Gooden.

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?

Apparently, you don't fully understand the consequences of that assumption.

The simplistic way you see it:

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

The proper way of seeing it:


Having Skinner over POB would allow us to, and I'm paraphrasing Doc, take the gamble of waiting for Smith - and, at least, have a chance of signing him (or Drew Gooden).

[BudweiserCeltic]

Cordobes, you have yet to show me any scenario of how things would play out in that having Skinner (instead of POB) over Moore would put us in a position to get Smith. You have done ZERO in that regard. All you're doing is talking. Show me.

Waiting has nothing to do with. Show me what roster moves would've put us in a better position to get Smith with Skinner in here. Show me when those roster moves would've been done. Show me what difference does it make having Skinner over Moore improves our chances. There's simply no scenario. The only thing you might come up with is that "maybe we can waive Skinner and try to go after Smith" (which wouldn't be a sure thing)... but even so, what stops Danny from waiving someone else if Smith is such a hot stuff?

[cordobes]

Cordobes, you have yet to show me any scenario of how things would play out in that having Skinner (instead of POB) over Moore would put us in a position to get Smith. You have done ZERO in that regard. All you're doing is talking. Show me.

Having Skinner over POB would allow us to, and I'm paraphrasing Doc, take the gamble of waiting for Smith - and, at least, have a chance of signing him (or Drew Gooden).

If you disagree with the previous statement, I'd like to know why.

-----

Having Skinner over POB downside, worst case scenario:
- you enter the playoffs with Skinner in your roster - with the advantage that he played an entire season with the team and had a training camp.

upside:
- you sign Joe Smith or Drew Gooden. At least you make them an offer and hope them to bite it.

-----

Current situation:
- you signed Moore, who's barely better than Skinner, if better at all, and didn't even had the chance of spending the season with the team. You weren't even able to gamble on Smith or Gooden.
 

[BudweiserCeltic]

Cordobes, you have yet to show me any scenario of how things would play out in that having Skinner (instead of POB) over Moore would put us in a position to get Smith. You have done ZERO in that regard. All you're doing is talking. Show me.

Having Skinner over POB would allow us to, and I'm paraphrasing Doc, take the gamble of waiting for Smith - and, at least, have a chance of signing him (or Drew Gooden).

If you disagree with the previous statement, I'd like to know why.

-----

Having Skinner over POB downside, worst case scenario:
- you enter the playoffs with Skinner in your roster - with the advantage that he played an entire season with the team and had a training camp.

upside:
- you sign Joe Smith or Drew Gooden. At least you make them an offer and hope them to bite it.

-----

Current situation:
- you signed Moore, who's barely better than Skinner, if better at all, and didn't even had the chance of spending the season with the team. You weren't even able to gamble on Smith or Gooden.
 

Once again you're sidestepping the issue. The question is in how would it help us to land Smith. All your other opinions in all other matters I don't care about.

Would having Skinner over Moore for the full year might have been a better option, hey I could agree to that. But once again you've failed to show me how it would improve our chances with Smith. How having Skinner would've allowed us to "wait", if maybe no waiting would've been needed to be done because Smith wouldn't have been a priority.

You still ignoring 2 key issues. A full roster, and big-man depth filled with Scal-Davis-Powe-Skinner/Moore. There's little to no difference in the scenario as it regards landing Smith.

[cordobes]

Wait, I thought that the reason we didn't wait for Smith (and for March 1st, to see who were the best options available) was because we couldn't run the risk of entering the playoffs with that roster spot open (or occupied by POB, which is barely the same).

I now see you disagree with that.

If you can't understand that not having the pressing need of filling that spot would allow the team to wait and see who would be available and then try to get a true impact player instead of just someone who fills the depth need, then I don't know what to say. I'm curious to see how do you interpret Doc's words.

It's an old rule in the business world - the best moments to buy are those where you're not really forced to make the buy. 

[BudweiserCeltic]

Wait, I thought that the reason we didn't wait for Smith (and for March 1st, to see who were the best options available) was because we couldn't run the risk of entering the playoffs with that roster spot open (or occupied by POB, which is barely the same).

I now see you disagree with that.

If you can't understand that not having the pressing need of filling that spot would allow the team to wait and see who would be available and then try to get a true impact player instead of just someone who fills the depth need, then I don't know what to say. I'm curious to see how do you interpret Doc's words.

It's an old rule in the business world - the best moments to buy are those where you're not really forced to make the buy. 

OK, I see you have problem with coming with the scenario. You have yet to show me how having Skinner instead of Moore would've allowed us to go after Smith.

There's no difference. Roster would be the same. Financials would be the same. Our buying power would be the same. Seriously, are you just conviniently ignoring this factors?

I don't need to hear your philosophy on the matter again. Show me HOW. I've asked you a couple of times already, but you don't want to. It's ok, we don't have to drag this convo any longer if you don't want to do it.

[cordobes]

Wait, I thought that the reason we didn't wait for Smith (and for March 1st, to see who were the best options available) was because we couldn't run the risk of entering the playoffs with that roster spot open (or occupied by POB, which is barely the same).

I now see you disagree with that.

If you can't understand that not having the pressing need of filling that spot would allow the team to wait and see who would be available and then try to get a true impact player instead of just someone who fills the depth need, then I don't know what to say. I'm curious to see how do you interpret Doc's words.

It's an old rule in the business world - the best moments to buy are those where you're not really forced to make the buy. 

OK, I see you have problem with coming with the scenario. You have yet to show me how having Skinner instead of Moore would've allowed us to go after Smith.

There's no difference. Roster would be the same. Financials would be the same. Our buying power would be the same. Seriously, are you just conviniently ignoring this factors?

I don't need to hear your philosophy on the matter again. Show me HOW. I've asked you a couple of times already, but you don't want to. It's ok, we don't have to drag this convo any longer if you don't want to do it.

Are you really saying that waving Moore after signing him just a week ago is the same of waving another player you added in the pre-season? Are you really trying to argue that Moore and his agent (or Joe Smith and his agent) would see with good eyes the fact that one of them would certainly be out of the rotation? Wow, that's quite bizarre...

You can make up all you want, but Doc was crystal clear: the reason we didn't make an offer to Smith was because "we couldn't take the gamble of waiting".


We couldn't wait for the March 1st deadline. It's as simple as that. Why? Because POB was such a bum he was traded for his own roster spot and we needed to sign the first serviceable vet. big man available.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Are you really saying that waving Moore after signing him just a week ago is the same of waving another player you added in the pre-season?

What's stopping Ainge from waiving Pruitt if it means getting Smith? Also, when would you have waived Skinner? If you waived Skinner, would it have assured we getting Smith? Do you waive Skinner and risk missing out on Smith and be left with nothing?

Are you really trying to argue that Moore and his agent (or Joe Smith and his agent) would see with good eyes the fact that one of them would certainly be out of the rotation? Wow, that's quite bizarre...

As explained, this isn't necessarily so. Moore would still be the only legit 7 footer and in many matchups the better option as a center over Smith. Again, if it means landing Smith, why not just reduce Powe's and Davi's roles?

You can make up all you want, but Doc was crystal clear: the reason we didn't make an offer to Smith was because "we couldn't take the gamble of waiting".

You're just reading too much into it. You're not asking the important question of "Why waiting got us away from the running" (if true at all). That's the important part, not wether we waited or not.

We couldn't wait for the March 1st deadline. It's as simple as that. Why? Because POB was such a bum he was traded for his own roster spot and we needed to sign the first serviceable vet. big man available.

Once again, had we had Skinner... how would this had been any different. Say we wait as you want with Skinner in here, then what? What improvement in this situation improves our chances of landing Smith?

[BballTim]

Cordobes, you have yet to show me any scenario of how things would play out in that having Skinner (instead of POB) over Moore would put us in a position to get Smith. You have done ZERO in that regard. All you're doing is talking. Show me.

Having Skinner over POB would allow us to, and I'm paraphrasing Doc, take the gamble of waiting for Smith - and, at least, have a chance of signing him (or Drew Gooden).

If you disagree with the previous statement, I'd like to know why.

-----

Having Skinner over POB downside, worst case scenario:
- you enter the playoffs with Skinner in your roster - with the advantage that he played an entire season with the team and had a training camp.

upside:
- you sign Joe Smith or Drew Gooden. At least you make them an offer and hope them to bite it.

-----

Current situation:
- you signed Moore, who's barely better than Skinner, if better at all, and didn't even had the chance of spending the season with the team. You weren't even able to gamble on Smith or Gooden.
 

  Is Skinner any better than Davis, or even as good? Is he someone who brings more length to the team? His best years seem to be in his past. While POB didn't work out (not necessarily an unforseen event) at least he had a small chance of filling a position of need. All I see Skinner doing is duplicating Glen.

[cordobes]

Cordobes, you have yet to show me any scenario of how things would play out in that having Skinner (instead of POB) over Moore would put us in a position to get Smith. You have done ZERO in that regard. All you're doing is talking. Show me.

Having Skinner over POB would allow us to, and I'm paraphrasing Doc, take the gamble of waiting for Smith - and, at least, have a chance of signing him (or Drew Gooden).

If you disagree with the previous statement, I'd like to know why.

-----

Having Skinner over POB downside, worst case scenario:
- you enter the playoffs with Skinner in your roster - with the advantage that he played an entire season with the team and had a training camp.

upside:
- you sign Joe Smith or Drew Gooden. At least you make them an offer and hope them to bite it.

-----

Current situation:
- you signed Moore, who's barely better than Skinner, if better at all, and didn't even had the chance of spending the season with the team. You weren't even able to gamble on Smith or Gooden.
 

  Is Skinner any better than Davis, or even as good? Is he someone who brings more length to the team? His best years seem to be in his past. While POB didn't work out (not necessarily an unforseen event) at least he had a small chance of filling a position of need. All I see Skinner doing is duplicating Glen.

He adds depth, just like Moore. He's also a vastly superior shot-blocker and a better defender, especially versus bigger centers.

I really can't understand your attraction with length. Length in itself is useless. The thing is that generally more length implies better rebounding, better defense on taller players, more shots altered, more shot-blocks, etc. But there are exceptions to that - Moore being one of them. Who cares if he has 2 more inches at the top of his head than Skinner if he isn't able to use that additional flesh to, say, rebound more?

Even if people prefer Moore to Skinner due to the better jumper, I don't really think anyone can argue there's a big difference among them.