Celtics, Warriors, Clippers "strongly engaged" in Chris Paul talks

[indeedproceed]

I...agree that a team bottom of the barrel for a year or two with a tradition of winning and (hopefully) run the right way isn't without it's joys (mostly of anticipation).

But it still sucks. Especially without any pedigree youngsters to root for everytime they get a double double.

[tyrone biggums]

Rondo+Green + both first rounds picks to me seems to be very risky gamble on danny's part for what could be a 1year rental.

if he books it for NYC next summer, we instantly become a bottom of the barrell team with no draft picks to even build from.

 danny will look like the biggest fool

then again, if he stays and we get Howard he looks like a genius

to me though, its too big of a risk

A bottom of the barrel team, that probably has cap room for two max free agents, to play with Paul Pierce. They aren't by any means completely screwed here if this happens.

but what max free agents are going to want to come to Boston to play with a 36year old Paul Pierce and no one else? wed likely end up being cavs/raptors bad..

2 reasons

1) The Celtics have a winning history, unlike the two teams that you mentioned. Pierce is a spare part, but hes still better than any of the dreck that is put on the court for either team in Raptor Land or Cav land.

2) Players want to play for Doc Rivers, hes a well known and respected coach, also has won in this league with Orlando and Boston.

This was the same argument used back in 2006 when this team was stuck in hell and everyone wanted to keep the precious prospects and build the team from the draft up. If you have the cap room for more than 1 max player then you will be able to work it out just fine.

[action781]

1) The Celtics have a winning history, unlike the two teams that you mentioned. Pierce is a spare part, but hes still better than any of the dreck that is put on the court for either team in Raptor Land or Cav land.

I think winning history means absolute crap.  I think it's something that player say once they've signed with a team like that because it makes the fan base like them more, but I think it has almost 0 to do with the decision itself.  If there isn't winning talent in place, then winning tradition would mean absolutely nothing to draw me as a free agent.

[Who]

1) The Celtics have a winning history, unlike the two teams that you mentioned. Pierce is a spare part, but hes still better than any of the dreck that is put on the court for either team in Raptor Land or Cav land.

I think winning history means absolute crap.  I think it's something that player say once they've signed with a team like that because it makes the fan base like them more, but I think it has almost 0 to do with the decision itself.  If there isn't winning talent in place, then winning tradition would mean absolutely nothing to draw me as a free agent.

Recent history is a factor. Knowing and trusting the front office's ability to build a winner.

Ancient history, absolutely not. It's nice. A bonus. But irrelevant.

[dtrader]

1) The Celtics have a winning history, unlike the two teams that you mentioned. Pierce is a spare part, but hes still better than any of the dreck that is put on the court for either team in Raptor Land or Cav land.

I think winning history means absolute crap.  I think it's something that player say once they've signed with a team like that because it makes the fan base like them more, but I think it has almost 0 to do with the decision itself.  If there isn't winning talent in place, then winning tradition would mean absolutely nothing to draw me as a free agent.

Exactly.  You dont hear many prized free agents talk about how theyd love to play for Detroit.  They had a championship run pretty recently, a hall of famer in the front office in Joe Dumars, and a well liked Coach in Lawrence Frank.  They also have uncertainty regarding their roster going forward, and a cold climate =/

[action781]

1) The Celtics have a winning history, unlike the two teams that you mentioned. Pierce is a spare part, but hes still better than any of the dreck that is put on the court for either team in Raptor Land or Cav land.

I think winning history means absolute crap.  I think it's something that player say once they've signed with a team like that because it makes the fan base like them more, but I think it has almost 0 to do with the decision itself.  If there isn't winning talent in place, then winning tradition would mean absolutely nothing to draw me as a free agent.

Recent history is a factor. Knowing and trusting the front office's ability to build a winner.

Ancient history, absolutely not. It's nice. A bonus. But irrelevant.

OK, with that I agree.  But I think in Boston's case, it's more ancient history that posters are considering.

[33_Larry Legend_33]

1) The Celtics have a winning history, unlike the two teams that you mentioned. Pierce is a spare part, but hes still better than any of the dreck that is put on the court for either team in Raptor Land or Cav land.

I think winning history means absolute crap.  I think it's something that player say once they've signed with a team like that because it makes the fan base like them more, but I think it has almost 0 to do with the decision itself.  If there isn't winning talent in place, then winning tradition would mean absolutely nothing to draw me as a free agent.

Recent history is a factor. Knowing and trusting the front office's ability to build a winner.

Ancient history, absolutely not. It's nice. A bonus. But irrelevant.

OK, with that I agree.  But I think in Boston's case, it's more ancient history that posters are considering.

It will come down to 1) money (lots of it), and 2) the ability to play next to one his buddy bigs (howard?).  history??  doesn't mean crap...  chris paul could probably care less if it was Red Auerbach or Red Robin...

[tyrone biggums]

1) The Celtics have a winning history, unlike the two teams that you mentioned. Pierce is a spare part, but hes still better than any of the dreck that is put on the court for either team in Raptor Land or Cav land.

I think winning history means absolute crap.  I think it's something that player say once they've signed with a team like that because it makes the fan base like them more, but I think it has almost 0 to do with the decision itself.  If there isn't winning talent in place, then winning tradition would mean absolutely nothing to draw me as a free agent.

Recent history is a factor. Knowing and trusting the front office's ability to build a winner.

Ancient history, absolutely not. It's nice. A bonus. But irrelevant.

OK, with that I agree.  But I think in Boston's case, it's more ancient history that posters are considering.

It will come down to 1) money (lots of it), and 2) the ability to play next to one his buddy bigs (howard?).  history??  doesn't mean crap...  chris paul could probably care less if it was Red Auerbach or Red Robin...

Recent history of making 2 NBA finals since 2008, they make a 3rd if KG doesn't blow his knee out in 09 and probably ends up repeating. The front office knows how to build a team and surround stars with the right talent to win. They have the cap room to make 2 max contract offers and Doc Rivers is the coach. I don't know what else to say except there are two pockets of fans here.

1)The ones that either think that Rondo is better regardless/or that while he isn't better hes not worth risking for Paul straight up (I'm aware its not just a 1 for 1 deal) because, hes signed for 3 more years.

2)The fans that want to see a superstar added to the big 3 and go all in this year, instead of rolling the dice and hoping that a shortened season will be enough to make it happen.

Ainge is going with the 2nd option it seems, which is the smart move. You don't play the game to be runner up, and you don't set out a goal for your team to only make the 2nd round, as constructed right now the Celtics will not get past the Heat or the Bulls, Paul gives them a chance.

Say we keep Rondo...who the hell do you build around? Is the end game to Amnesty Pierce next year and trade Rondo for picks and finally "Blow it Up?"

[j804]

So it appears talks are done for the night .... wonder what we wake up to tomorrow?

 

[theswitch]

"CP3 Update: Source close to process tells ESPN that NOR talks w/GSW "definitely cooling" because of GSW refusal to put Steph Curry in deal" - Marc Stein

One down - Celtics v. Clippers.

[LB3533]

Looks like all the other potential trade partners are with holding key pieces to trade for CP3.

Seems like only the Celtics are offering a big piece.

If the Hornets decline Rondo but goes on and trades CP3 for Deandre Jordan as the center piece....wow what a joke.

[PosImpos]

"CP3 Update: Source close to process tells ESPN that NOR talks w/GSW "definitely cooling" because of GSW refusal to put Steph Curry in deal" - Marc Stein

One down - Celtics v. Clippers.

very good news for celtics.  i doubt clips put eric gordon on the table, meaning celtics are the last ones standing.

[Evantime34]

"CP3 Update: Source close to process tells ESPN that NOR talks w/GSW "definitely cooling" because of GSW refusal to put Steph Curry in deal" - Marc Stein

One down - Celtics v. Clippers.

I think this is how we will end up with CP3, GSW won't give up Steph Curry and the Clippers won't give up Jordan or Gordon. We are left with the only viable offer, which is why we should not give up two firsts in the deal since we'd be bidding against ourselves.

[theswitch]

"CP3 Update: Source close to process tells ESPN that NOR talks w/GSW "definitely cooling" because of GSW refusal to put Steph Curry in deal" - Marc Stein

One down - Celtics v. Clippers.

I think this is how we will end up with CP3, GSW won't give up Steph Curry and the Clippers won't give up Jordan or Gordon. We are left with the only viable offer, which is why we should not give up two firsts in the deal since we'd be bidding against ourselves.

Absolutely. At this point, I would be pretty upset if we gave up two firsts OR Jeff Green if we are just bidding against ourselves. Hell, I'd prefer if we kept Avery Bradley too. If we end up bidding against ourselves, does Rondo + BBD get it done?

[dtrader]

So what is our most current offer (supposedly)?

Last I read, it was Rondo, Moore, and Green.

If we're just competing against Jordan, Aminu, Bledsoe and a pick, I feel like we should have it.

If theres a way that we can get this done without using any of our picks, I'll be way more confident.

If we could somehow add a pick, and come away with Aaron Gray as well, I'd feel great about the whole thing.  Then we'd be switching Rondo for CP, and switching a backup wing for a backup Big that we desperately need.