Well I know the Genius of LA Management has kicked out our butts for decades. Aside from the short lived Big 3 Era. LA builds long term. Celts have no game plan for building a team. It's all patch work.
All the Banners and retired numbers hanging are History. In business it's what have you done for me lately. Celtics aren't running a business. More like AA meetings.
The Celts had some bad luck along the way but the reason "LA management kicked our butts for decades" is that Shaq wanted to play for them and didn't screw it up the way Howard did with the Nets.
Our roster management in the mid-late 90s and early 00s was a lot worse than you seem to remember it. Bad luck didn't draft Jerome Moiso and Kedrick Brown and acquire Vin Baker.
ML Carr, Chris Wallace, and Rick Pitino stunk.
Sorry, I wasn't aware that the period of time from mid-late 90s and early 00s was decades long. Thanks for clearing that up.
And I wasn't aware that Shaq was a Laker for decades long. Thanks for clearing that up. My reply was to your post, which solely referenced the Shaq era in LA.
Please make an effort to read your own posts before your condescending replies. Or perhaps that would get in the way of your typical uproarious one-liners.
Haha. I didn't say the Shaq was a Laker for decades. It was pretty much the only time since at least the 70s that the Lakers management kicked our butts. If I'd taken the time to read my own post I would have considered why I might have put the phrase "LA management kicked our butts for decades" in quotes before I corrected that "mistake".
Glad you like the one liners though.
So enlighten me, why did you put the phrase in quotes? Please throw in a one-liner if possible.
Because they *didn't* kick our butts for decades. I'd think that was fairly obvious, unless you have some time frame longer than 20 years where LA's management clearly outdid ours.
So why mention Shaq signing with the Lakers at all? What does that have to do with your point that there was never a 20 year stretch where the Lakers did outperform us?
Because the Shaq era was really the only time in those decades where the Lakers management outperformed ours significantly, and in that case "outperforming" involved clearing cap space to sign Shaq after he decided that he wanted to play in LA (and not for the Clippers). And, sorry for quoting another word, I guess you'll have to spend more time coming up with tortured reasoning about why it doesn't convey whatever meaning it's meant to.
I am sorry that your "fairly obvious" quotations take the form of an incredibly sloppy run-on sentence.
Haha. Have fun being the language police on this blog, you'll certainly have your hands full correcting people's grammar and you'll probably be able to while away entire afternoons if you add checking for spellling mistakes as well, and I'm sure that if you look closely enough you'll be able to find plenty of sloppy sentences, some of which are of the run-on variety that don't seem to end when they should and might be lacking in proper punctuation as well.
BTW, does the above count as a one-liner?
Your sloppy run-on sentence indicated that the Shaq signing was "the reason" for something. "The reason" for what? By your own explanation of what the quotations are meant to indicate, a grammatical reading of your sentence would seem to indicate that signing Shaq was the reason LA *didn't* kick our butts for decades, which makes little sense.
I didn't say Shaq's signing was "the reason" for something. I said that Shaq *wanting to sign* with the Lakers was the reason that the Lakers management "kicked our butts for decades". I think you need to work on your "grammatical reading" skills.
My initial point in this topic was only that poor Celtics management was just as much, if not more, of a contributing factor for this lone period of poor Celtic performance. This was before you decided to nitpick a prior post by another poster with a condescending remark referring to decades, which I was not referring to at all. I am allowed my own opinion on the era when Shaq was a Laker. My point should have been "fairly obvious".
I have learned that it is cool for you to nitpick pieces of my post but not cool for me to question you on pieces of your posts. That is good to know. My role as the language police should be a good match for your role as the reply police. You can decide which people are allowed to reply to which parts of posts. Your first step can be disallowing me from comment on the Shaq era in Los Angeles.
I have no desire to be the language police for the blog. However, if you state that your post is "fairly obvious" when it is really a run-on that alternates between sarcastic remark and serious remark in a sloppy fashion, it deserves to be remarked upon. This is especially true if it is followed up by condescending posts. Your very first reply to me in this thread was very condescending, which is against the posting rules on this forum. In fact, a large portion of your posts are condescending and snarky.
My reading skills are fine, thank you.
Topic: Bynum out and Howard in. It sucks but didn't we already know this would happen? (Read 9338 times)