« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: how 'bout the LLE to Smith?  (Read 16545 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

how 'bout the LLE to Smith?
« on: March 03, 2009, 09:48:26 AM »

Offline winsomme

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6058
  • Tommy Points: 255
I am completely uncomfortable with screwing over Moore, but just for the sake of conversation, does offering the LLE get us back in the running for Smith...

leaving aside for the moment what that would mean about the Moore signing...
Logged
Re: how 'bout the LLE to Smith?
« Reply #1 on: March 03, 2009, 09:50:54 AM »

Offline Roy Hobbs

  • In The Rafters
  • The Natural
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33333
  • Tommy Points: 6430
  • Doc could learn a thing or two from Norman Dale
If Smith's signing comes down to money, the Cavs or Lakers can offer more.  With the LLE, the most we can offer is still below $1.5 million, which is about $2 million than Cleveland could give.

Danny said that we're not signing Smith.  As unfortunate as that is (since he'll make a competitor stronger), I think it's the case.  Hopefully, Mikki Moore surprises us.
Logged

All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino

Portland CrotoNats:  2009 CB Draft Champions
Re: how 'bout the LLE to Smith?
« Reply #2 on: March 03, 2009, 09:52:32 AM »

Offline BudweiserCeltic

  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19003
  • Tommy Points: 1833
Smith is not comming here. I don't think he would've picked us over the Cavs with or without Moore once Wallace got injured and the Cavs showed real interest in him.
Logged
Re: how 'bout the LLE to Smith?
« Reply #3 on: March 03, 2009, 09:56:33 AM »

Offline winsomme

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6058
  • Tommy Points: 255
Quote from: Roy Hobbs on March 03, 2009, 09:50:54 AM
If Smith's signing comes down to money, the Cavs or Lakers can offer more.  With the LLE, the most we can offer is still below $1.5 million, which is about $2 million than Cleveland could give.

Danny said that we're not signing Smith.  As unfortunate as that is (since he'll make a competitor stronger), I think it's the case.  Hopefully, Mikki Moore surprises us.

but do we know how much of that 3.5 mil CLE is actually willing to spend.

what if it's "partly" about the money? What if Smith just wants a decent offer and then it's about where he would actually enjoy playing more....

I'm just saying, maybe he actually does want to play here...
Logged
Re: how 'bout the LLE to Smith?
« Reply #4 on: March 03, 2009, 09:57:51 AM »

Offline BudweiserCeltic

  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19003
  • Tommy Points: 1833
Maybe he actually wants to play in Cleveland too.

Wanting Smith is wishful thinking. We might've had a good chance with him had he done the buyout procedure in a timely manner... before Wallace got injured. I really doubt he would choose us over Cleveland.

Smith took too long to do his buyout AND a great opportunity opened up with Cleveland who I still think would have been his top choice.
Logged
Re: how 'bout the LLE to Smith?
« Reply #5 on: March 03, 2009, 10:01:03 AM »

Offline MMacOH

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 761
  • Tommy Points: 129
Cleveland is willing to pay Smith as much as it takes.  He isn't coming to Boston
Logged
Re: how 'bout the LLE to Smith?
« Reply #6 on: March 03, 2009, 10:06:01 AM »

Offline Roy Hobbs

  • In The Rafters
  • The Natural
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33333
  • Tommy Points: 6430
  • Doc could learn a thing or two from Norman Dale
Quote from: BudweiserCeltic on March 03, 2009, 09:57:51 AM
We might've had a good chance with him had he done the buyout procedure in a timely manner... Smith took too long to do his buyout ...

How do we know that Smith was holding up the buyout?  Didn't the only written reports we've seen on the subject suggest that it was OKC that was driving the hard bargain?

Danny chose to sign Moore, rather than wait for Smith.  If there's blame (and I'm not arguing that there is for purposes of this thread), why do people allocate it to Smith, instead of to the person who decided to pass on him?
Logged

All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino

Portland CrotoNats:  2009 CB Draft Champions
Re: how 'bout the LLE to Smith?
« Reply #7 on: March 03, 2009, 10:07:50 AM »

Offline winsomme

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6058
  • Tommy Points: 255
Quote from: BudweiserCeltic on March 03, 2009, 09:57:51 AM
Maybe he actually wants to play in Cleveland too.

Wanting Smith is wishful thinking. We might've had a good chance with him had he done the buyout procedure in a timely manner... before Wallace got injured. I really doubt he would choose us over Cleveland.

Smith took too long to do his buyout AND a great opportunity opened up with Cleveland who I still think would have been his top choice.

you're right. this is wishful thinking. I'm just trying to ask the question....
Logged
Re: how 'bout the LLE to Smith?
« Reply #8 on: March 03, 2009, 10:09:12 AM »

Offline BudweiserCeltic

  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19003
  • Tommy Points: 1833
Quote from: Roy Hobbs on March 03, 2009, 10:06:01 AM
Quote from: BudweiserCeltic on March 03, 2009, 09:57:51 AM
We might've had a good chance with him had he done the buyout procedure in a timely manner... Smith took too long to do his buyout ...

How do we know that Smith was holding up the buyout?  Didn't the only written reports we've seen on the subject suggest that it was OKC that was driving the hard bargain?

Then substitute "he" with OKC. It doesn't matter.

It's like saying to a dude that arrived late "man, if you hadn't taken so long to arrive here" when it was really his wife that took too long getting ready. Who cares right?
Logged
Re: how 'bout the LLE to Smith?
« Reply #9 on: March 03, 2009, 10:15:10 AM »

Offline cordobes

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3556
  • Tommy Points: 576
  • Basketball is like chess, only without the dice
Smith's buyout was timely enough. He was bought out before the end of March 1st. That's all it was needed. It's the first time I'm hearing the argument we wouldn't be able to compete for the players waived on March 1st. I thought that putting us in position to get those players was the reason why Ainge's had a bad off-season.

The team has already explained the reason we didn't get Smith (or at least, why we're not even trying): we "couldn't take the gamble of waiting".
Logged
Re: how 'bout the LLE to Smith?
« Reply #10 on: March 03, 2009, 10:17:07 AM »

Offline winsomme

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6058
  • Tommy Points: 255
Look, this CLE game on Friday is going to be an eye-opener.

Maybe I'm starting to panic a little, but LeBron is turning into an otherworldly player and i guarantee that Doc and Danny are seeing the same thing.

Doc is so desperate to win games that he is playing Paul 48 minutes!!

The heat is on, and as much as i would feel bad about screwing over Moore. The Cs have to push every possible move to its limit.

i know Danny said we are out, but i would wager that phone calls are being exchanged.

I'm just wondering aloud what the best we have to offer is...
Logged
Re: how 'bout the LLE to Smith?
« Reply #11 on: March 03, 2009, 10:18:49 AM »

Offline BudweiserCeltic

  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19003
  • Tommy Points: 1833
Quote from: cordobes on March 03, 2009, 10:15:10 AM
Smith's buyout was timely enough. He was bought out before the end of March 1st. That's all it was needed. It's the first time I'm hearing the argument we wouldn't be able to compete for the players waived on March 1st. I thought that putting us in position to get those players was the reason why Ainge's had a bad off-season.

The team has already explained the reason we didn't get Smith (or at least, why we're not even trying): we "couldn't take the gamble of waiting".

So, Smith choosing the Cavs anyways had we waited is not a valid enough reason? Cavs stronger buying power over Smith is not a valid reason?

Quote from: winsomme on March 03, 2009, 10:17:07 AM
Look, this CLE game on Friday is going to be an eye-opener.


We don't have a full healthy roster at the moment, how much of an eye opener will it be? Not much. Considering that we've only had TA for one of the previous two games, and TA did a good job on him the only game he played... and now he's not here at this moment, but should be for the playoffs.
Logged
Re: how 'bout the LLE to Smith?
« Reply #12 on: March 03, 2009, 10:30:02 AM »

Offline cordobes

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3556
  • Tommy Points: 576
  • Basketball is like chess, only without the dice
Quote from: BudweiserCeltic on March 03, 2009, 10:18:49 AM
Quote from: cordobes on March 03, 2009, 10:15:10 AM
Smith's buyout was timely enough. He was bought out before the end of March 1st. That's all it was needed. It's the first time I'm hearing the argument we wouldn't be able to compete for the players waived on March 1st. I thought that putting us in position to get those players was the reason why Ainge's had a bad off-season.

The team has already explained the reason we didn't get Smith (or at least, why we're not even trying): we "couldn't take the gamble of waiting".

So, Smith choosing the Cavs anyways had we waited is not a valid enough reason? Cavs stronger buying power over Smith is not a valid reason?

How exactly do you know that Smith was going to pick the Cavs? You mean that landing Smith was always a pipedream, that we never had a chance to begin with? That makes Doc's statements quite bizarre, he seems to think that we had a chance - otherwise why even consider to gamble in a game you couldn't win?

It also makes several past statements in this site quite bizarre.

Anyway, thanks for admitting that Smith's buyout was timely enough.
Logged
Re: how 'bout the LLE to Smith?
« Reply #13 on: March 03, 2009, 10:34:44 AM »

Offline BudweiserCeltic

  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19003
  • Tommy Points: 1833
Quote from: cordobes on March 03, 2009, 10:30:02 AM
Quote from: BudweiserCeltic on March 03, 2009, 10:18:49 AM
Quote from: cordobes on March 03, 2009, 10:15:10 AM
Smith's buyout was timely enough. He was bought out before the end of March 1st. That's all it was needed. It's the first time I'm hearing the argument we wouldn't be able to compete for the players waived on March 1st. I thought that putting us in position to get those players was the reason why Ainge's had a bad off-season.

The team has already explained the reason we didn't get Smith (or at least, why we're not even trying): we "couldn't take the gamble of waiting".

So, Smith choosing the Cavs anyways had we waited is not a valid enough reason? Cavs stronger buying power over Smith is not a valid reason?

How exactly do you know that Smith was going to pick the Cavs? You mean that landing Smith was always a pipedream, that we never had a chance to begin with? That makes Doc's statements quite bizarre, he seems to think that we had a chance - otherwise why even consider to gamble in a game you couldn't win?

It also makes several past statements in this site quite bizarre.

Anyway, thanks for admitting that Smith's buyout was timely enough.


I'm not saying that he would've chosen them for sure, just saying that there are just as strong indications that it would be the case. As I said plenty of times, that's my opinion.

Landing Smith wasn't a pipedream, but circumstances changed especially when Wallace got injured. How can you not see that?
Logged
Re: how 'bout the LLE to Smith?
« Reply #14 on: March 03, 2009, 10:42:15 AM »

Offline cordobes

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3556
  • Tommy Points: 576
  • Basketball is like chess, only without the dice
Quote from: BudweiserCeltic on March 03, 2009, 10:34:44 AM
Quote from: cordobes on March 03, 2009, 10:30:02 AM
Quote from: BudweiserCeltic on March 03, 2009, 10:18:49 AM
Quote from: cordobes on March 03, 2009, 10:15:10 AM
Smith's buyout was timely enough. He was bought out before the end of March 1st. That's all it was needed. It's the first time I'm hearing the argument we wouldn't be able to compete for the players waived on March 1st. I thought that putting us in position to get those players was the reason why Ainge's had a bad off-season.

The team has already explained the reason we didn't get Smith (or at least, why we're not even trying): we "couldn't take the gamble of waiting".

So, Smith choosing the Cavs anyways had we waited is not a valid enough reason? Cavs stronger buying power over Smith is not a valid reason?

How exactly do you know that Smith was going to pick the Cavs? You mean that landing Smith was always a pipedream, that we never had a chance to begin with? That makes Doc's statements quite bizarre, he seems to think that we had a chance - otherwise why even consider to gamble in a game you couldn't win?

It also makes several past statements in this site quite bizarre.

Anyway, thanks for admitting that Smith's buyout was timely enough.


I'm not saying that he would've chosen them for sure, just saying that there are just as strong indications that it would be the case. As I said plenty of times, that's my opinion.

Landing Smith wasn't a pipedream, but circumstances changed especially when Wallace got injured. How can you not see that?

We signed Moore before Wallace got injured.

The fact that Wallace got injured had absolutely nothing with the decision we "couldn't take the gamble of waiting", unless you're now arguing that Ainge predicted Wallace would get injured during that week.

Nice try though.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5   Go Up
« previous next »