Author Topic: Ty Thomas  (Read 6274 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Ty Thomas
« on: February 19, 2010, 11:10:11 AM »

Offline winsomme

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6058
  • Tommy Points: 255
Looking back at moves that were actually made. This is the move I would like Danny to have gotten in on the most.

I think Ty could have addressed key holes that we still have: athleticism in the front court and a defender who can bother long wings like LeBron, Lewis, JJ, Josh Smith, Jamison, VC.

Considering how little CHA gave up to get him, I wish the Cs had pushed harder to get a player that CHI obviously wanted to move.

Hopefully someone now comes available via buyout who can add something along these lines to the team because I do think a player with these skills could really help.

Re: Ty Thomas
« Reply #1 on: February 19, 2010, 12:07:52 PM »

Offline acieEarl

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1087
  • Tommy Points: 47
yea I hear ya on this one. I think Thomas is just what we need, when we battle team like Atlanta with all their young, athletic guys. I bet Chicago was trying to drop Hinrich on us in the deal.

Re: Ty Thomas
« Reply #2 on: February 19, 2010, 12:11:40 PM »

Offline Greenbean

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3739
  • Tommy Points: 418
I think we might have been in on him but if it came down to picks, CHA's was more attractive than ours. Throwing in a 2ND pick would not have been worth it IMO.

But yeah Ty Thomas would have been awesome. I love his energy game.


Re: Ty Thomas
« Reply #3 on: February 19, 2010, 12:13:08 PM »

Offline PosImpos

  • NCE
  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12383
  • Tommy Points: 903
  • Rondo = Good
If he weren't an expiring contract (and thus liable to bolt in the offseason for more money than we'd be willing to offer) I think Danny would have given up the necessary assets to get him (e.g. picks).  But it wouldn't be worth trading picks for a guy that we might not be able to keep longer than a couple months.
Never forget the Champs of '08, or the gutsy warriors of '10.

"I know you all wanna win, but you gotta do it TOGETHER!"
- Doc Rivers

Re: Ty Thomas
« Reply #4 on: February 19, 2010, 12:13:41 PM »

Offline winsomme

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6058
  • Tommy Points: 255
I think we might have been in on him but if it came down to picks, CHA's was more attractive than ours. Throwing in a 2ND pick would not have been worth it IMO.

But yeah Ty Thomas would have been awesome. I love his energy game.



Is the CHA pick more attractive though. It's far enough in the future that the Cs could be rebuilding tehn and it's protected, isn't it?

Re: Ty Thomas
« Reply #5 on: February 19, 2010, 12:17:03 PM »

Offline winsomme

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6058
  • Tommy Points: 255
If he weren't an expiring contract (and thus liable to bolt in the offseason for more money than we'd be willing to offer) I think Danny would have given up the necessary assets to get him (e.g. picks).  But it wouldn't be worth trading picks for a guy that we might not be able to keep longer than a couple months.

We're not that far off being a serious Title team, so it would have been well worth it to me.

Plus, we could re-sign him or S&T trade him.

Re: Ty Thomas
« Reply #6 on: February 19, 2010, 12:18:10 PM »

Offline Lucky17

  • DKC Commish
  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16021
  • Tommy Points: 2352
I think we might have been in on him but if it came down to picks, CHA's was more attractive than ours. Throwing in a 2ND pick would not have been worth it IMO.

But yeah Ty Thomas would have been awesome. I love his energy game.



Is the CHA pick more attractive though. It's far enough in the future that the Cs could be rebuilding tehn and it's protected, isn't it?

It's a 2012 lottery protected 1st, with protections decreasing over the next 5 years.
DKC League is now on reddit!: http://www.reddit.com/r/dkcleague

Re: Ty Thomas
« Reply #7 on: February 19, 2010, 12:19:52 PM »

Offline winsomme

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6058
  • Tommy Points: 255
I think we might have been in on him but if it came down to picks, CHA's was more attractive than ours. Throwing in a 2ND pick would not have been worth it IMO.

But yeah Ty Thomas would have been awesome. I love his energy game.



Is the CHA pick more attractive though. It's far enough in the future that the Cs could be rebuilding tehn and it's protected, isn't it?

It's a 2012 lottery protected 1st, with protections decreasing over the next 5 years.

Yeah, so I don't know that the pick is the reason. I tend to think Danny just wasn't hot on the trail of getting Ty...

Re: Ty Thomas
« Reply #8 on: February 19, 2010, 12:27:34 PM »

Offline Greenbean

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3739
  • Tommy Points: 418
I think we might have been in on him but if it came down to picks, CHA's was more attractive than ours. Throwing in a 2ND pick would not have been worth it IMO.

But yeah Ty Thomas would have been awesome. I love his energy game.



Is the CHA pick more attractive though. It's far enough in the future that the Cs could be rebuilding tehn and it's protected, isn't it?

It's a 2012 lottery protected 1st, with protections decreasing over the next 5 years.

Yeah, so I don't know that the pick is the reason. I tend to think Danny just wasn't hot on the trail of getting Ty...


Wow I didnt know the details of the pick. That sucks then.

We definitely should have gotten in on that. Maybe it had something to do with CHI being unwilling to deal with us? Also there is that MJ connection to the bulls ;). Sounds silly but that franchise owes him a lot more than Ty Thomas.

Re: Ty Thomas
« Reply #9 on: February 19, 2010, 12:34:17 PM »

Offline makaveli

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3154
  • Tommy Points: 321
  • The Truth
Thomas and Baby reunited, that would be a lot of fun  :-\
what doesn't kill you makes you stronger

Re: Ty Thomas
« Reply #10 on: February 28, 2010, 07:24:10 AM »

Offline winsomme

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6058
  • Tommy Points: 255
10 days later and still feeling the same way. This team desperately needs athleticism in the front court and it's frustrating because the price tag on Ty was not very high.

This is a concrete piece that could have had a big impact on this season.

He would be a pretty good piece moving forward as well.

Re: Ty Thomas
« Reply #11 on: February 28, 2010, 07:35:41 AM »

Offline billysan

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3875
  • Tommy Points: 178
10 days later and still feeling the same way. This team desperately needs athleticism in the front court and it's frustrating because the price tag on Ty was not very high.

This is a concrete piece that could have had a big impact on this season.

He would be a pretty good piece moving forward as well.
I am in full agreement that he would have been be a difference maker. What was the problem if Hinrich was 'thrown' at us as well? We could have still done the NY deal if we wanted and/or Baby to Cha and added even more young depth/athleticism/talent at guard.

The main characters: Paul Pierce, KG, Rondo and Perk would have all still been here, we would be that much more talented and a lot deeper. I firmly believe we also could have gotten Ray back after a buyout as well.


In fairness to Danny, I think Thomas wasnt thrilled at riding the bench on another team behind KG and Perk for a year or two. I also have to believe Danny was hesitant to pair Thomas back up with Baby in the event he couldnt move him. Lastly, why were the Bulls willing to part with a talent like him? I have no facts, but there must be a reason besides cost.

"First fix their hearts" -Eizo Shimabuku

Re: Ty Thomas
« Reply #12 on: February 28, 2010, 07:43:28 AM »

Offline PLamb

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1569
  • Tommy Points: 1
The problem with trading for Tyrus Thomas is that to make the trade worth while your would need to resin him this off season

The money the Celtics would have used to resign him I believe is earmarked already for a Kendrick Perkins extension, which probably will need to be addressed this off season, and a resigning of Ray Allen

Just my belief on the matter and why I think Danny wouldn't do it

I just think Danny's working budget is going to be shrinking dramatically over the next couple years and he wouldn't look at Thomas as someone he would invest in long term when he could get someone like him at a cost controlled dollar amount in the draft

Larry Sanders comes to mind
Pick 2 Knicks

PG: George Hill, Ty Lawson
SG: Ray Allen, Anthony Parker, Quentin Richardson
SF: Grant Hill, Matt Barnes, D
PF: Zach Randolph, Kenyon Martin, Jon Brockman, Dante Cunningham
C:  Nene Hilario,   Own rights: Nikola Pekovic IR: Kyle Weaver

Re: Ty Thomas
« Reply #13 on: February 28, 2010, 07:51:24 AM »

Offline winsomme

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6058
  • Tommy Points: 255
10 days later and still feeling the same way. This team desperately needs athleticism in the front court and it's frustrating because the price tag on Ty was not very high.

This is a concrete piece that could have had a big impact on this season.

He would be a pretty good piece moving forward as well.
I am in full agreement that he would have been be a difference maker. What was the problem if Hinrich was 'thrown' at us as well? We could have still done the NY deal if we wanted and/or Baby to Cha and added even more young depth/athleticism/talent at guard.

The main characters: Paul Pierce, KG, Rondo and Perk would have all still been here, we would be that much more talented and a lot deeper. I firmly believe we also could have gotten Ray back after a buyout as well.


In fairness to Danny, I think Thomas wasnt thrilled at riding the bench on another team behind KG and Perk for a year or two. I also have to believe Danny was hesitant to pair Thomas back up with Baby in the event he couldnt move him. Lastly, why were the Bulls willing to part with a talent like him? I have no facts, but there must be a reason besides cost.



There are definitely reasons to think twice about Ty, but I just think he has a skill set that fit a huge need for us.

Considering how little he went for, this seems like a clear move that Danny could have made to help this team this year.

I agree about Hinrich also. I think he could have fit in well here.

Re: Ty Thomas
« Reply #14 on: February 28, 2010, 07:55:13 AM »

Offline winsomme

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6058
  • Tommy Points: 255
The problem with trading for Tyrus Thomas is that to make the trade worth while your would need to resin him this off season

The money the Celtics would have used to resign him I believe is earmarked already for a Kendrick Perkins extension, which probably will need to be addressed this off season, and a resigning of Ray Allen

Just my belief on the matter and why I think Danny wouldn't do it

I just think Danny's working budget is going to be shrinking dramatically over the next couple years and he wouldn't look at Thomas as someone he would invest in long term when he could get someone like him at a cost controlled dollar amount in the draft

Larry Sanders comes to mind

I don't agree. I think expiring contracts plus a pick would have been well worth getting Ty for the remainder of the season with just the possibility of re-signing him.

This team has holes that NEEDED to be addressed.