Author Topic: Could Ainge have improved the Celtics in 2009? (Read 14453 times)

Gunner · « **on:** May 27, 2009, 01:01:05 AM »

Could the Celtics have been a "deeper" team last year?

It would have been nice to be deeper.

But once we designed the team around the Big 3 our options were limited.

Remember all the talk after the KG trade about the Bench?

We had no cap space. [In 2009 the big 3 cost us 60 million against a 58 million cap.]

We forgot about the cap space issue because the Celtics got all of the best veteran players who wanted to play "cheap" for a winner - Posey, House and Brown.

For whatever reason, that didn't happen in 2009.

McDyss preferred Detroit.

Smith preferred the Cav's, etc.

The best cheap veterans didn't want the Celtics in 2009.

It shouldn't have been that way.

The Celtics won 2008.

That should have attracted more veterans who wanted to win.

But it didn't! Something about the Celtics culture turned off guys like McDyss, Smith, etc.

Anyone have any ideas for why the best veteran free agents didn't want to play here?

I lean towards "the poor sportmanship rap". Trashing talking, cheap shots etc.

Don't know what else it could be. Again, suggestions?

In 2009, the big 3 cost us 60.25 million against a 58 million cap.

In 2010, the big 3 will cost us 55.0 million against a 57 million cap.

But in 2010 we need to pay Davis more, at least $5 million [vs less than a million last year.] and Rondo will be getting a huge pay increase probably more than $11 to $13 million to pay him like a top 5 point guard. [if we don't give him a big pay increase we probably lose him as a restricted free agent after next season.]

So, bottom line, no real improvement in the roster unless one or more of the Big 3 is traded.

The question becomes: can we win a championship with our current roster?

If we can't win with this roster or something very close to it, do we break up the team, trade one or more of the Big 3?

tenn_smoothie · « **Reply #1 on:** May 27, 2009, 02:33:25 AM »

mcdyess and smith simply returned to their former teams so you do not make an accurate comparison to the celtics ability to attract posey, house and brown during the summer of 2007.

CoachBo · « **Reply #2 on:** May 27, 2009, 07:41:46 AM »

I lean toward a wide variety of poor personnel decisions: No competent 3 behind Pierce, O'Blount, Mikki Moore, Darius Miles, overpaying wildly to resign Tony Allen, passing on serviceable players to draft Giddens.

Where millions are involved, no one cares about sportsmanship. This isn't YMCA ball.

Roy Hobbs · « **Reply #3 on:** May 27, 2009, 08:38:45 AM »

Sure he could have. One guy who wanted to come here: Chris Andersen. That move absolutely would have improved our team. Signing Quinton Ross -- who was without a team, and had to sign a partially guaranteed minimum salary deal late in the off-season -- would have helped, too.

winsomme · « **Reply #4 on:** May 27, 2009, 08:53:10 AM »

I hope watching these Conference Finals we can all agree that bench players are very important in winning and losing games.

Having guys that can come in and make shots and make plays is just very important. Also have flexibility to adjust to match ups is a big help.

As much as I have not been a fan of Pietrus, ORLs ability to bring him in off the bench has been very disruptive to the offense CLE has been playing all season.

cordobes · « **Reply #5 on:** May 27, 2009, 09:30:04 AM »

Quote

Anyone have any ideas for why the best veteran free agents didn't want to play here?

I lean towards "the poor sportmanship rap". Trashing talking, cheap shots etc.

Don't know what else it could be. Again, suggestions?

The idea that veterans didn't want to play here due to the trash talking makes as much sense as the thesis that the city ballet or the sushi restaurants are a factor when free-agents are choosing a ball club to play for. We simply didn't offer enough money - or, in some cases, we simply didn't make an offer.

Paying Davis $5 millions would be suicidal. I don't believe Ainge would do that.

Of course he could have improved the team. He committed some gross miscalculations about the market and player evaluations; plus, opted for a risky strategy that didn't pay out.

BballTim · « **Reply #6 on:** May 27, 2009, 10:12:01 AM »

Quote from: Roy Hobbs on May 27, 2009, 08:38:45 AM

Sure he could have. One guy who wanted to come here: Chris Andersen. That move absolutely would have improved our team. Signing Quinton Ross -- who was without a team, and had to sign a partially guaranteed minimum salary deal late in the off-season -- would have helped, too.

I don't think Ross would have helped much during the playoffs. When I saw the Grizzlies play he was practically invisible.

Roy Hobbs · « **Reply #7 on:** May 27, 2009, 10:18:29 AM »

Quote from: BballTim on May 27, 2009, 10:12:01 AM

Quote from: Roy Hobbs on May 27, 2009, 08:38:45 AM
Sure he could have. One guy who wanted to come here: Chris Andersen. That move absolutely would have improved our team. Signing Quinton Ross -- who was without a team, and had to sign a partially guaranteed minimum salary deal late in the off-season -- would have helped, too.

I don't think Ross would have helped much during the playoffs. When I saw the Grizzlies play he was practically invisible.

If nothing else, he could have spelled Pierce in the regular season. He's a veteran who plays extremely good defense. Players like that are valuable (and he's just one example of the many players who were available, that Danny easily could have signed).

Danny *could* have improved the team. It's doubtful that he could have improved it enough to win a championship, but he absolutely could have improved it, with minimum salaried guys who wanted to play here.

BballTim · « **Reply #8 on:** May 27, 2009, 10:31:00 AM »

Quote from: Roy Hobbs on May 27, 2009, 10:18:29 AM

Quote from: BballTim on May 27, 2009, 10:12:01 AM
Quote from: Roy Hobbs on May 27, 2009, 08:38:45 AM
Sure he could have. One guy who wanted to come here: Chris Andersen. That move absolutely would have improved our team. Signing Quinton Ross -- who was without a team, and had to sign a partially guaranteed minimum salary deal late in the off-season -- would have helped, too.

I don't think Ross would have helped much during the playoffs. When I saw the Grizzlies play he was practically invisible.

If nothing else, he could have spelled Pierce in the regular season. He's a veteran who plays extremely good defense. Players like that are valuable (and he's just one example of the many players who were available, that Danny easily could have signed).

Danny *could* have improved the team. It's doubtful that he could have improved it enough to win a championship, but he absolutely could have improved it, with minimum salaried guys who wanted to play here.

True, but TA was doing a decent enough job of backing up Paul during the season. Ainge could have improved the team but a lot of the improvements would have been pretty marginal. Based on watching Denver play earlier this year I doubt Andersen would have gotten a lot of playing time before the injuries struck. Clearly he's a better player than Moore or POB but IMO not really better than Davis was or Powe for that matter.

winsomme · « **Reply #9 on:** May 27, 2009, 11:07:16 AM »

Quote from: BballTim on May 27, 2009, 10:31:00 AM

Quote from: Roy Hobbs on May 27, 2009, 10:18:29 AM
Quote from: BballTim on May 27, 2009, 10:12:01 AM
Quote from: Roy Hobbs on May 27, 2009, 08:38:45 AM
Sure he could have. One guy who wanted to come here: Chris Andersen. That move absolutely would have improved our team. Signing Quinton Ross -- who was without a team, and had to sign a partially guaranteed minimum salary deal late in the off-season -- would have helped, too.

I don't think Ross would have helped much during the playoffs. When I saw the Grizzlies play he was practically invisible.

If nothing else, he could have spelled Pierce in the regular season. He's a veteran who plays extremely good defense. Players like that are valuable (and he's just one example of the many players who were available, that Danny easily could have signed).

Danny *could* have improved the team. It's doubtful that he could have improved it enough to win a championship, but he absolutely could have improved it, with minimum salaried guys who wanted to play here.

True, but TA was doing a decent enough job of backing up Paul during the season. Ainge could have improved the team but a lot of the improvements would have been pretty marginal. Based on watching Denver play earlier this year I doubt Andersen would have gotten a lot of playing time before the injuries struck. Clearly he's a better player than Moore or POB but IMO not really better than Davis was or Powe for that matter.

but presenting it like that makes it seem like we were choosing between Baby or Powe and Andersen.

Signing Andersen would have been in addition to having Powe and Baby and he would have brought skills that neither Baby nor Powe had....

you need versatility in your bench. that's why we brought in Moore. not because Baby and Leon weren't good enough, but because we needed length, someone off the bench that could protect the rim. it was an element missing in Baby and Leon. regardless of whether Andersen was better than Baby/Leon or not.

nickagneta · « **Reply #10 on:** May 27, 2009, 11:57:13 AM »

Quote from: BballTim on May 27, 2009, 10:31:00 AM

Quote from: Roy Hobbs on May 27, 2009, 10:18:29 AM
Quote from: BballTim on May 27, 2009, 10:12:01 AM
Quote from: Roy Hobbs on May 27, 2009, 08:38:45 AM
Sure he could have. One guy who wanted to come here: Chris Andersen. That move absolutely would have improved our team. Signing Quinton Ross -- who was without a team, and had to sign a partially guaranteed minimum salary deal late in the off-season -- would have helped, too.

I don't think Ross would have helped much during the playoffs. When I saw the Grizzlies play he was practically invisible.

If nothing else, he could have spelled Pierce in the regular season. He's a veteran who plays extremely good defense. Players like that are valuable (and he's just one example of the many players who were available, that Danny easily could have signed).

Danny *could* have improved the team. It's doubtful that he could have improved it enough to win a championship, but he absolutely could have improved it, with minimum salaried guys who wanted to play here.

True, but TA was doing a decent enough job of backing up Paul during the season. Ainge could have improved the team but a lot of the improvements would have been pretty marginal. Based on watching Denver play earlier this year I doubt Andersen would have gotten a lot of playing time before the injuries struck. Clearly he's a better player than Moore or POB but IMO not really better than Davis was or Powe for that matter.

You really believe that?

According to 82games.com in the 5-man rotation Tony was used most often in, he played with Pierce. Also, according to 82games.com, Tony only played 4% of the SF minutes on the team last year and was a Net -12 points and had a PER of 11 at the SF position.

I would say that Tony did the job Tony always did which was spelling Ray at the 2 slot and did his usual Tony Allen inconistent, unintelligent job doing it. Decent wouldn't be a word I would use to describe his play. Ray was the player that spelled Paul when Paul went to the bench. Ray came in and worked with the second team when Paul sat and Ra most often guarded the SF during those times.

BballTim · « **Reply #11 on:** May 27, 2009, 12:00:21 PM »

Quote from: winsomme on May 27, 2009, 11:07:16 AM

Quote from: BballTim on May 27, 2009, 10:31:00 AM
Quote from: Roy Hobbs on May 27, 2009, 10:18:29 AM
Quote from: BballTim on May 27, 2009, 10:12:01 AM
Quote from: Roy Hobbs on May 27, 2009, 08:38:45 AM
Sure he could have. One guy who wanted to come here: Chris Andersen. That move absolutely would have improved our team. Signing Quinton Ross -- who was without a team, and had to sign a partially guaranteed minimum salary deal late in the off-season -- would have helped, too.

I don't think Ross would have helped much during the playoffs. When I saw the Grizzlies play he was practically invisible.

If nothing else, he could have spelled Pierce in the regular season. He's a veteran who plays extremely good defense. Players like that are valuable (and he's just one example of the many players who were available, that Danny easily could have signed).

Danny *could* have improved the team. It's doubtful that he could have improved it enough to win a championship, but he absolutely could have improved it, with minimum salaried guys who wanted to play here.

True, but TA was doing a decent enough job of backing up Paul during the season. Ainge could have improved the team but a lot of the improvements would have been pretty marginal. Based on watching Denver play earlier this year I doubt Andersen would have gotten a lot of playing time before the injuries struck. Clearly he's a better player than Moore or POB but IMO not really better than Davis was or Powe for that matter.

but presenting it like that makes it seem like we were choosing between Baby or Powe and Andersen.

Signing Andersen would have been in addition to having Powe and Baby and he would have brought skills that neither Baby nor Powe had....

you need versatility in your bench. that's why we brought in Moore. not because Baby and Leon weren't good enough, but because we needed length, someone off the bench that could protect the rim. it was an element missing in Baby and Leon. regardless of whether Andersen was better than Baby/Leon or not.

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. In fact I compared him to POB and Moore in my post. I'm just saying that Andersen went to a team with no frontcourt depth to speak of. Who did he have to beat out for minutes? People see him putting up some numbers because he got a regular spot in the rotation for 20 minutes a game. Put him on our team and suddenly he'd playing a few minutes a game behind Davis and Powe and he's showing little understanding of our defense in those minutes and I don't think he'd be viewed as the answer to our prayers.

winsomme · « **Reply #12 on:** May 27, 2009, 12:06:47 PM »

Quote from: BballTim on May 27, 2009, 12:00:21 PM

Quote from: winsomme on May 27, 2009, 11:07:16 AM
Quote from: BballTim on May 27, 2009, 10:31:00 AM
Quote from: Roy Hobbs on May 27, 2009, 10:18:29 AM
Quote from: BballTim on May 27, 2009, 10:12:01 AM
Quote from: Roy Hobbs on May 27, 2009, 08:38:45 AM
Sure he could have. One guy who wanted to come here: Chris Andersen. That move absolutely would have improved our team. Signing Quinton Ross -- who was without a team, and had to sign a partially guaranteed minimum salary deal late in the off-season -- would have helped, too.

I don't think Ross would have helped much during the playoffs. When I saw the Grizzlies play he was practically invisible.

If nothing else, he could have spelled Pierce in the regular season. He's a veteran who plays extremely good defense. Players like that are valuable (and he's just one example of the many players who were available, that Danny easily could have signed).

Danny *could* have improved the team. It's doubtful that he could have improved it enough to win a championship, but he absolutely could have improved it, with minimum salaried guys who wanted to play here.

True, but TA was doing a decent enough job of backing up Paul during the season. Ainge could have improved the team but a lot of the improvements would have been pretty marginal. Based on watching Denver play earlier this year I doubt Andersen would have gotten a lot of playing time before the injuries struck. Clearly he's a better player than Moore or POB but IMO not really better than Davis was or Powe for that matter.

but presenting it like that makes it seem like we were choosing between Baby or Powe and Andersen.

Signing Andersen would have been in addition to having Powe and Baby and he would have brought skills that neither Baby nor Powe had....

you need versatility in your bench. that's why we brought in Moore. not because Baby and Leon weren't good enough, but because we needed length, someone off the bench that could protect the rim. it was an element missing in Baby and Leon. regardless of whether Andersen was better than Baby/Leon or not.

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. In fact I compared him to POB and Moore in my post. I'm just saying that Andersen went to a team with no frontcourt depth to speak of. Who did he have to beat out for minutes? People see him putting up some numbers because he got a regular spot in the rotation for 20 minutes a game. Put him on our team and suddenly he'd playing a few minutes a game behind Davis and Powe and he's showing little understanding of our defense in those minutes and I don't think he'd be viewed as the answer to our prayers.

I guess what i'm saying is that when it comes to bench players getting minutes, especially in the playoffs, if both players are capable players, it's about match ups and not necessarily about who is the better player.

but when you are in a situation like Docs and you have players that can't stay on the court, then you don't have the option of playing match ups.

BballTim · « **Reply #13 on:** May 27, 2009, 12:14:13 PM »

Quote from: nickagneta on May 27, 2009, 11:57:13 AM

Quote from: BballTim on May 27, 2009, 10:31:00 AM
Quote from: Roy Hobbs on May 27, 2009, 10:18:29 AM
Quote from: BballTim on May 27, 2009, 10:12:01 AM
Quote from: Roy Hobbs on May 27, 2009, 08:38:45 AM
Sure he could have. One guy who wanted to come here: Chris Andersen. That move absolutely would have improved our team. Signing Quinton Ross -- who was without a team, and had to sign a partially guaranteed minimum salary deal late in the off-season -- would have helped, too.

I don't think Ross would have helped much during the playoffs. When I saw the Grizzlies play he was practically invisible.

If nothing else, he could have spelled Pierce in the regular season. He's a veteran who plays extremely good defense. Players like that are valuable (and he's just one example of the many players who were available, that Danny easily could have signed).

Danny *could* have improved the team. It's doubtful that he could have improved it enough to win a championship, but he absolutely could have improved it, with minimum salaried guys who wanted to play here.

True, but TA was doing a decent enough job of backing up Paul during the season. Ainge could have improved the team but a lot of the improvements would have been pretty marginal. Based on watching Denver play earlier this year I doubt Andersen would have gotten a lot of playing time before the injuries struck. Clearly he's a better player than Moore or POB but IMO not really better than Davis was or Powe for that matter.
You really believe that?

According to 82games.com in the 5-man rotation Tony was used most often in, he played with Pierce. Also, according to 82games.com, Tony only played 4% of the SF minutes on the team last year and was a Net -12 points and had a PER of 11 at the SF position.

I would say that Tony did the job Tony always did which was spelling Ray at the 2 slot and did his usual Tony Allen inconistent, unintelligent job doing it. Decent wouldn't be a word I would use to describe his play. Ray was the player that spelled Paul when Paul went to the bench. Ray came in and worked with the second team when Paul sat and Ra most often guarded the SF during those times.

Whatever. I guess since any time TA was in for Paul 82games listed Ray as the sf and TA as the sg then TA didn't back up Paul...

By the way, how much more could you slant your analysis? You mention that Paul is in TA's top 5 man unit but fail to mention that Paul isn't in any of the next 5 on the list. You give net points and a low PER when 82games list TA as a sf but completely ignore that he had a slightly better than average PER and a decent net point differential at the sg spot or that he had a nearly average PER and a decent point differential overall.

BballTim · « **Reply #14 on:** May 27, 2009, 12:20:05 PM »

Quote from: winsomme on May 27, 2009, 12:06:47 PM

Quote from: BballTim on May 27, 2009, 12:00:21 PM
Quote from: winsomme on May 27, 2009, 11:07:16 AM
Quote from: BballTim on May 27, 2009, 10:31:00 AM
Quote from: Roy Hobbs on May 27, 2009, 10:18:29 AM
Quote from: BballTim on May 27, 2009, 10:12:01 AM
Quote from: Roy Hobbs on May 27, 2009, 08:38:45 AM
Sure he could have. One guy who wanted to come here: Chris Andersen. That move absolutely would have improved our team. Signing Quinton Ross -- who was without a team, and had to sign a partially guaranteed minimum salary deal late in the off-season -- would have helped, too.

I don't think Ross would have helped much during the playoffs. When I saw the Grizzlies play he was practically invisible.

If nothing else, he could have spelled Pierce in the regular season. He's a veteran who plays extremely good defense. Players like that are valuable (and he's just one example of the many players who were available, that Danny easily could have signed).

Danny *could* have improved the team. It's doubtful that he could have improved it enough to win a championship, but he absolutely could have improved it, with minimum salaried guys who wanted to play here.

True, but TA was doing a decent enough job of backing up Paul during the season. Ainge could have improved the team but a lot of the improvements would have been pretty marginal. Based on watching Denver play earlier this year I doubt Andersen would have gotten a lot of playing time before the injuries struck. Clearly he's a better player than Moore or POB but IMO not really better than Davis was or Powe for that matter.

but presenting it like that makes it seem like we were choosing between Baby or Powe and Andersen.

Signing Andersen would have been in addition to having Powe and Baby and he would have brought skills that neither Baby nor Powe had....

you need versatility in your bench. that's why we brought in Moore. not because Baby and Leon weren't good enough, but because we needed length, someone off the bench that could protect the rim. it was an element missing in Baby and Leon. regardless of whether Andersen was better than Baby/Leon or not.

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. In fact I compared him to POB and Moore in my post. I'm just saying that Andersen went to a team with no frontcourt depth to speak of. Who did he have to beat out for minutes? People see him putting up some numbers because he got a regular spot in the rotation for 20 minutes a game. Put him on our team and suddenly he'd playing a few minutes a game behind Davis and Powe and he's showing little understanding of our defense in those minutes and I don't think he'd be viewed as the answer to our prayers.

I guess what i'm saying is that when it comes to bench players getting minutes, especially in the playoffs, if both players are capable players, it's about match ups and not necessarily about who is the better player.

but when you are in a situation like Docs and you have players that can't stay on the court, then you don't have the option of playing match ups.

But if, instead of playing regular minutes on a team with no depth whatsoever, if Andersen were playing mainly mop-up minutes for the Celts he might not be seen as such a capable player.

Author Topic: Could Ainge have improved the Celtics in 2009? (Read 14453 times)

Could Ainge have improved the Celtics in 2009?

Gunner

Re: Could Ainge have improved the Celtics in 2009?

tenn_smoothie

Re: Could Ainge have improved the Celtics in 2009?

CoachBo

Re: Could Ainge have improved the Celtics in 2009?

Roy Hobbs

Re: Could Ainge have improved the Celtics in 2009?

winsomme

Re: Could Ainge have improved the Celtics in 2009?

cordobes

Re: Could Ainge have improved the Celtics in 2009?

BballTim

Re: Could Ainge have improved the Celtics in 2009?

Roy Hobbs

Re: Could Ainge have improved the Celtics in 2009?

BballTim

Re: Could Ainge have improved the Celtics in 2009?

winsomme

Re: Could Ainge have improved the Celtics in 2009?

nickagneta

Re: Could Ainge have improved the Celtics in 2009?

BballTim

Re: Could Ainge have improved the Celtics in 2009?

winsomme

Re: Could Ainge have improved the Celtics in 2009?

BballTim

Re: Could Ainge have improved the Celtics in 2009?

BballTim

Hello! Guest

Latest Discussions