Bill Simmons on the Celtics, Thunder

[bbd24]

Aporel, that's just it. People complain regardless. The roster is stacked. How do you complain when your 2nd string consists of guys like West, Green, BBD, J. O'neal, and Krstic ? All could start in this league and your still complaining about the roster, or losing Perkins ? Man, take a better look at rosters around the league, then try and complain. Open up those eyes.

If they played well together then it be great. But I haven't seen anything to make me think it's working well. On paper only takes you so far.

Is it because of them or the way some of the core 4 have played ?

[aporel#18]

Aporel, that's just it. People complain regardless. The roster is stacked. How do you complain when your 2nd string consists of guys like West, Green, BBD, J. O'neal, and Krstic ? All could start in this league and your still complaining about the roster, or losing Perkins ? Man, take a better look at rosters around the league, then try and complain. Open up those eyes.

If they played well together then it be great. But I haven't seen anything to make me think it's working well. On paper only takes you so far.

It doesn't seem to work well, you're right, but we're not allowed to be in the gym with them, so we don't have enough information. We just overanalyze over what we are seeing in the regular season. Doc and Danny won't tell us how is all really working out. We just can wait until the playoffs, and they can't start soon enough...

Danny takes big gambles, so it could be possible this doesn't work out well in the end. But right now, I haven't lost any confidence in the Celtics chances. On paper, and by the way Doc is handling rotations, my opinion is they are trying to get the new players in the same page, and almost all the games since the trade are somehow complimenting the training sessions between games.

I'm an optimist, I know, but until I see them being dominated by a single team in the playoffs, I see them winning #18.

Go Celtics!!!

[bbd24]

To Bill and those who were wanting to keep king Perk, what was your plan ? You holding onto him just for this years run, gambling that he can even give you something with those knees ? Even when you have guys off the street (free agency) coming in and getting his job/role done and then some ?

Why let him walk on you next year and get nothing now in return ?

I'm not willing to take that chance. I already know I'm not paying him 7/8/9 M per, not for those services. Not with the core 4 around. I get something now, and don't lose for the future. You can afford to lose Perks services when you've already built a rock around the team with the core four on board.

[Roy H.]

To Bill and those who were wanting to keep king Perk, what was your plan ? You holding onto him just for this years run, gambling that he can even give you something with those knees ? Even when you have guys off the street (free agency) coming in and getting his job/role done and then some ?

Why let him walk on you next year and get nothing now in return ?

I'm not willing to take that chance. I already know I'm not paying him 7/8/9 M per, not for those services. Not with the core 4 around. I get something now, and don't lose for the future. You can afford to lose Perks services when you've already built a rock around the team with the core four on board.

I think those who wanted to keep "king Perk", as you derisively call him, would have preferred to maximize our championship chances this year, and believe that keeping him would have done so.  Trading Perk for a trade exception and draft picks wouldn't have been the worst thing in the world.

Myself, I just can't take the "gamble" of Perk's health too seriously, when his supposed replacement hasn't played a game since February.  If Shaq's health was really that precarious, I think it would have been smarter to keep as much legit center depth as possible.

[billysan]

To Bill and those who were wanting to keep king Perk, what was your plan ? You holding onto him just for this years run, gambling that he can even give you something with those knees ? Even when you have guys off the street (free agency) coming in and getting his job/role done and then some ?

Why let him walk on you next year and get nothing now in return ?

I'm not willing to take that chance. I already know I'm not paying him 7/8/9 M per, not for those services. Not with the core 4 around. I get something now, and don't lose for the future. You can afford to lose Perks services when you've already built a rock around the team with the core four on board.

I think those who wanted to keep "king Perk", as you derisively call him, would have preferred to maximize our championship chances this year, and believe that keeping him would have done so.  Trading Perk for a trade exception and draft picks wouldn't have been the worst thing in the world.

Myself, I just can't take the "gamble" of Perk's health too seriously, when his supposed replacement hasn't played a game since February.  If Shaq's health was really that precarious, I think it would have been smarter to keep as much legit center depth as possible.

I will admit that I also have had the "gamble on Perk's health" defense in support of the OKC trade. I think the real issue is that Danny Ainge 'Gambled' on Shaq's health and based on his early season play, many of us here expected a return to that form.

It is obvious now that Danny had no intention of paying anyone not named Rajon Rondo or Paul Pierce a significant salary beyond their current contract. We may see an exception for Jeff Green and if KG wants to play and accepts a Ray Allen type deal? Glen Davis and Kendrick Perkins were not going to be 'paid'.

Danny took a leap of faith with Shaq and JO's health for this season and used it as justification for the trade. No one could have predicted the poor performance that resulted unless they also believed that the O'Neals would not be back. Even with Perk our playoff depth may have been Glen Davis, Semih Erden and Luke Harangody. Would that group have taken us further than our current group?

Certainly we are hurting for this years playoff chances. We may be better off in the long run. Time will tell and I dont think any predictions are reliable at this point because we dont know who will be on our roster next season. It shouldnt be a surprise to anyone if we have a lot more new faces going forward.

[BballTim]

And I'm pretty sure there were runors that Danny wanted Durant.

There were rumors to that effect, but I'm also about 90% sure that in the past 2 years or so Doc Rivers has stated pretty clearly that the Celtics would've taken Oden.

But the Celtics, despite having the second-worst record in the league, slipped to No. 5 in the lottery. They flipped the pick for Ray Allen, which helped lure Kevin Garnett, and the franchise’s 17th title soon followed. Had the Celtics landed the No. 1 pick, Rivers said, Oden would have been the choice.

“Even though everybody changes now, we were all for Oden, and I think 98 percent of the league,’’ Rivers said. “But now I hear it all over our staff, I hear it everywhere, ‘Oh, no, we were Durant guys.’ I don’t believe that. I think we would have drafted Oden.’’

  So your proof that the Celts wanted Oden is Doc hearing otherwise from the Celts staff and disregarding the claim? Not sure it matters anyways, put Oden in different circumstances and maybe he stays healthy.

[Eja117]

Simmons is no longer the Sports Guy. No Longer a Boston Celtics fan. No longer the average fan writing. He's part of the ESPN machine. They need somebody new.

True but what his Dad brings to the table is better than most sports writers.

[Roy H.]

And I'm pretty sure there were runors that Danny wanted Durant.

There were rumors to that effect, but I'm also about 90% sure that in the past 2 years or so Doc Rivers has stated pretty clearly that the Celtics would've taken Oden.

But the Celtics, despite having the second-worst record in the league, slipped to No. 5 in the lottery. They flipped the pick for Ray Allen, which helped lure Kevin Garnett, and the franchise’s 17th title soon followed. Had the Celtics landed the No. 1 pick, Rivers said, Oden would have been the choice.

“Even though everybody changes now, we were all for Oden, and I think 98 percent of the league,’’ Rivers said. “But now I hear it all over our staff, I hear it everywhere, ‘Oh, no, we were Durant guys.’ I don’t believe that. I think we would have drafted Oden.’’

  So your proof that the Celts wanted Oden is Doc hearing otherwise from the Celts staff and disregarding the claim? Not sure it matters anyways, put Oden in different circumstances and maybe he stays healthy.

Doc's saying all the talk is revisionist, that he hears the talk now but didn't at the time, and that the Celtics were taking Oden.  Since he's involved in personnel decisions, I'm sure he'd know.

[indeedproceed]

And I'm pretty sure there were runors that Danny wanted Durant.

There were rumors to that effect, but I'm also about 90% sure that in the past 2 years or so Doc Rivers has stated pretty clearly that the Celtics would've taken Oden.

But the Celtics, despite having the second-worst record in the league, slipped to No. 5 in the lottery. They flipped the pick for Ray Allen, which helped lure Kevin Garnett, and the franchise’s 17th title soon followed. Had the Celtics landed the No. 1 pick, Rivers said, Oden would have been the choice.

“Even though everybody changes now, we were all for Oden, and I think 98 percent of the league,’’ Rivers said. “But now I hear it all over our staff, I hear it everywhere, ‘Oh, no, we were Durant guys.’ I don’t believe that. I think we would have drafted Oden.’’

  So your proof that the Celts wanted Oden is Doc hearing otherwise from the Celts staff and disregarding the claim? Not sure it matters anyways, put Oden in different circumstances and maybe he stays healthy.

Doc said: "We were all Oden guys". That's my point. Has Danny Ainge ever said "We were actually Durant guys?"

I'd say my proof is pretty compelling in the context of whatever else is being bought into the conversation.

[BballTim]

And I'm pretty sure there were runors that Danny wanted Durant.

There were rumors to that effect, but I'm also about 90% sure that in the past 2 years or so Doc Rivers has stated pretty clearly that the Celtics would've taken Oden.

But the Celtics, despite having the second-worst record in the league, slipped to No. 5 in the lottery. They flipped the pick for Ray Allen, which helped lure Kevin Garnett, and the franchise’s 17th title soon followed. Had the Celtics landed the No. 1 pick, Rivers said, Oden would have been the choice.

“Even though everybody changes now, we were all for Oden, and I think 98 percent of the league,’’ Rivers said. “But now I hear it all over our staff, I hear it everywhere, ‘Oh, no, we were Durant guys.’ I don’t believe that. I think we would have drafted Oden.’’

  So your proof that the Celts wanted Oden is Doc hearing otherwise from the Celts staff and disregarding the claim? Not sure it matters anyways, put Oden in different circumstances and maybe he stays healthy.

Doc said: "We were all Oden guys". That's my point. Has Danny Ainge ever said "We were actually Durant guys?"

I'd say my proof is pretty compelling in the context of whatever else is being bought into the conversation.

  I'm pretty sure someone on espn said they surveyed all the nba gms on the draft and Ainge was the only one who said Durant, but I'm not going to try and dig up a 5 year old article to find it. I don't think it really affects the discussion in any case. If we'd drafted Oden and still had the ammo to trade for KG and still had  Rondo and PP we'd have been in good shape.

[indeedproceed]

  I'm pretty sure someone on espn said they surveyed all the nba gms on the draft and Ainge was the only one who said Durant, but I'm not going to try and dig up a 5 year old article to find it.

IIRC, I there were numberous "unnamed lockerroom sources" that said Danny was high on Durant. But Doc saying flat out 'we were oden guys' kind of sealed it for me. 

[BballTim]

  I'm pretty sure someone on espn said they surveyed all the nba gms on the draft and Ainge was the only one who said Durant, but I'm not going to try and dig up a 5 year old article to find it.

IIRC, I there were numberous "unnamed lockerroom sources" that said Danny was high on Durant. But Doc saying flat out 'we were oden guys' kind of sealed it for me. 

  It was well known Danny was high on Durant, but we'll never know either way, so agree to disagree. It doesn't really affect the main point, that Danny had the team in good position to succeed whether they won or lost the lottery.

[indeedproceed]

  I'm pretty sure someone on espn said they surveyed all the nba gms on the draft and Ainge was the only one who said Durant, but I'm not going to try and dig up a 5 year old article to find it.

IIRC, I there were numberous "unnamed lockerroom sources" that said Danny was high on Durant. But Doc saying flat out 'we were oden guys' kind of sealed it for me. 

  It was well known Danny was high on Durant, but we'll never know either way, so agree to disagree. It doesn't really affect the main point, that Danny had the team in good position to succeed whether they won or lost the lottery.

haha, you say that now..but put yourself back to the morning of draft day 2007, or better yet..may 22nd 2007, when the Celtics lost the lottery.

I swear that losing the Finals last year didn't even approach the level of pain I felt after losing the lottery and missing out on Durant/Oden.

[Roy H.]

  I'm pretty sure someone on espn said they surveyed all the nba gms on the draft and Ainge was the only one who said Durant, but I'm not going to try and dig up a 5 year old article to find it.

IIRC, I there were numberous "unnamed lockerroom sources" that said Danny was high on Durant. But Doc saying flat out 'we were oden guys' kind of sealed it for me. 

  It was well known Danny was high on Durant, but we'll never know either way, so agree to disagree. It doesn't really affect the main point, that Danny had the team in good position to succeed whether they won or lost the lottery.

What the original point was, though, is that if we'd won the lottery, that Ratliff / Raef trade would have looked a lot worse.  Pierce was already talking about how he didn't want to be part of rebuilding, and I think it's much more likely that Danny would have traded Pierce than that he would have traded for KG.  Remember, Garnett was balking at joining Pierce in Boston prior to us landing Ray.  In other words, we can't just say that we would have had a team that included Pierce, KG, and Durant, or Pierce, KG, and Oden, because it's very unlikely that that would have happened.  What we would have had, though, was Big Al + Durant, or Big Al + Oden, and in those circumstances Rudy Gay or Brandon Roy would have been a lot more valuable than Theo Ratliff's expiring contract.

[BballTim]

  I'm pretty sure someone on espn said they surveyed all the nba gms on the draft and Ainge was the only one who said Durant, but I'm not going to try and dig up a 5 year old article to find it.

IIRC, I there were numberous "unnamed lockerroom sources" that said Danny was high on Durant. But Doc saying flat out 'we were oden guys' kind of sealed it for me. 

  It was well known Danny was high on Durant, but we'll never know either way, so agree to disagree. It doesn't really affect the main point, that Danny had the team in good position to succeed whether they won or lost the lottery.

haha, you say that now..but put yourself back to the morning of draft day 2007, or better yet..may 22nd 2007, when the Celtics lost the lottery.

  I don't think I was as crushed, angry or bitter as most of the people that posted here or were calling in on weei. But obviously I wasn't predicting a title the following year.

  An aside, but I remember people calling the radio station to say they'd canceled their season tickets after the lottery result. After we traded for KG I was hopeful that all of those "fans" ended up at the back of the line for those season tix that sold out.