His last two stops have made it clear he's not comfortable coming off the bench.
That's all we could have offered him, better for both parties that he went to Philly.
He said he'd come off the bench for a contender. Contender is what we are. Moot point, but I still wish we'd have given it a shot.
He also said he'd do what's best for the team in Detroit.
He also smiled and said he was grateful for the opportunity in Memphis.
What he says publically when he's looking for a job is much different than what he'd accept once he got there.
Being discontented with coming off the bench for pathetic Memphis and accepting that role on the Celtics are two different matters entirely. We'll never know what the expectations were or whether they were communicated properly to him in Memphis.
I know he's been an arsehat at previous stops. I'm saying I'd have taken the practically no-risk chance that he'd behave differently with the veteran future hall of famers we have, and that he'd make a better backup PG and SG than we'd otherwise get.
We'll never know.
Why does everyone say it would be no risk. It would be a huge risk.
What happens when it doesn't turn out okay and you've cut and paid a player, cut and paid AI, paid the luxury tax on both and now have to go out to sign another guy and pay another tax? The C's could be looking at an additional payroll hit of somewhere between $2-$3.5 million. Do you think the C's ownership considers that a non risky amount of money?
What happens if Rasheed Wallace has some bad feelings about AI and doesn't want him here and then decides to give up on the team for signing him? Is that a risk management would want to take?
What happens if Rondo feels threaten by AI and starts causing problems? Are those risks that Doc would be okay with?
What happens if AI starts causing situations with the Big Three or poorly influencing the work habits and attitudes of the young players the Celtics have? Are those risks anyone in the organization would want to risk?
These are big risks in may book.
AI ended up in a situation that is best for the Sixers, best for AI and best for the Celtics. Good luck to him where he is.
You certainly have a lot of what ifs there. There were legitimate questions about bringing him on, but the financial one seems plain silly. He just signed with Philly for vet minimum, which if I'm not mistaken, the league picks up a fair portion of it (I realize there's also a cap hit), but strictly talent-wise, for vet minimum, AI is a no brainer (strictly talent-wise, mind you). I wouldn't even consider bringing in AI if we were a developing team. For a developing team he'd be strictly a marketing gimmick, who'd at most win a struggling team a few more games and fill seats, but ultimately probably cost the team a better pick. Marketing gimmick. The only reason I'd bring him in is if we were in contention to win it all this year, which we are. I wouldn't be the least concerned about his work habits influencing the few young players on the team. We have plenty of strong veteran leadership to counteract that, and besides, other than Rondo, and perhaps Baby, who would he influence? Hudson, JR, Billy? This would be about THIS year. None of those 3 factor into that equation.
Sure, there'd be some risk involved in bringing him in. I personally would have given it a shot. Clearly, it wasn't unanimous to bring him in among Celts brass, so it's moot, but he'd surely be the best backup PG we could have got, and as to him playing some 2, I'd imagine they could play him with Marquis, just the same way they do with Eddie, and Iverson, aside from stroking the 3, is clearly better than Eddie in every other facet. Talent-wise, at vet min, this would have been a no brainer. Not bringing him on here was not about talent or money. Other considerations proved greater for the brain trust, so they didn't pursue it. I wish they had but will lose no sleep over it.
Topic: Moments to Iverson's return: wish we'd have taken a chance (Read 8295 times)