"Red should of traded Bird+Co early, thats why we stunk yrs after"? #35 content

[The MadLad]

One of the dumber things ive read in this forum and on twitter after the trading of Pierce and KG was C fans saying the Celtics were bad for years after the original Big 3, because Red kept them too long and didnt trade them.

The original big 3 took the Celtic franchise to another level, on the court and off the court. On the court they won a lot of games, raised banners and did it in a way that revived the fans back into a frenzy over basketball in Boston.

Off the court, they happened to be playing at a time when the NBA was maturing (for better or worse) from a game to a business. Larry Bird and the success of the Celtics was huge in making the NBA a hugely successful business and contributed to players, owners and municipalities making millions of dollars. It was much more money than they were bringing in from just a few years previously.

But what the point I really wanted to make was that losing Len Bias and Reggie was a humongous blow to this team. I feel like fans, especially under the age of 30 have very little appreciation of how badly losing these two players hurt our franchise. These guys, especially Bias, were huge acquisitions from Red and they were going to be the cornerstone for our team for the next decade. Thats been said many times, but I feel like its impact has been marginalized. Without these two All-Stars, (in their prime non the less)the Celtics were left with role players playing big minutes, against a strong Eastern Conf.

That Reggie documentary last night should be required viewing for all young fans as a reminder of how huge of an impact losing Reggie was to this franchise. Combine that with the loss of the unbelievably talented Bias (throw in a couple of bad drafts too) and the result is a hole too deep for this franchise to crawl out of.

Trading any of the original Big 3 may seem like a nice simple way to address the issues we had after their retirements/ineffectiveness. But I think its a simple answer to a difficult question that fits easily in 140 characters, so fans (especially young ones) use to justify trading Pierce and KG.

IMO, its terribly misguided and, in a way, re-writing the beauty and tragedy of this franchise during a very interesting period.

[CelticG1]

Good points all around.

My confusion/annoyance with that sentiment was that because Danny told Red 18 years ago that he would have traded Bird etc that for some reason Danny had to take that comment to the grave regarding Pierce and KG.

Also aside from losing those 2 not getting any financial relief and continuing to be penalized after Reggies passing certainly added the insult to injury

[slamtheking]

Also aside from losing those 2 not getting any financial relief and continuing to be penalized after Reggies passing certainly added the insult to injury

this is another point that's often forgotten.  That ruling by the NBA screwed the C's for years after Reggie passed.  there was no logical or business excuse for it except an opportunity to screw over the Celtics organization

[bdm860]

While not getting Bias was a blow, I disagree that it really set the team back, if only because they never should have had him in the first place.  Obviously it set the team back, but it just set them back to the normal point they should have been at anyways.

It would be like the Heat trading Mario Chalmers away for a draft pick that turns out to be #2 Jabari Parker next year, and then some unfortunate incident happens where Parker never gets to play in the NBA. While obviously that would suck for Miami, I wouldn’t consider that a move that would screw the franchise up, but keeping Dwyane Wade another 5 years at max money would be.

It’s like say you have $2m in the bank, win the lottery and end up with another $1m, so now you have $3m.  Soon after you win the lottery, you get robbed of that $1m you just won, but you still have your original $2m.  Then 5-6 years down the road, through the investments and deals you made, you lose your original $2m.  Then you talk about how that robbery 5-6 years before really screwed up everything for you and caused you to go broke and bankrupt.  Ya I don’t know if I really buy that.

[CelticG1]

Also aside from losing those 2 not getting any financial relief and continuing to be penalized after Reggies passing certainly added the insult to injury

this is another point that's often forgotten.  That ruling by the NBA screwed the C's for years after Reggie passed.  there was no logical or business excuse for it except an opportunity to screw over the Celtics organization

Yup, hence why that rule is no longer in place

[LooseCannon]

Also aside from losing those 2 not getting any financial relief and continuing to be penalized after Reggies passing certainly added the insult to injury

this is another point that's often forgotten.  That ruling by the NBA screwed the C's for years after Reggie passed.  there was no logical or business excuse for it except an opportunity to screw over the Celtics organization

I actually think the league would have made the same ruling no matter which team was involved.  The Celtics basically petitioned the NBA to make an exception to salary cap rules in their case and the league said there would be no exceptions.

[slamtheking]

Also aside from losing those 2 not getting any financial relief and continuing to be penalized after Reggies passing certainly added the insult to injury

this is another point that's often forgotten.  That ruling by the NBA screwed the C's for years after Reggie passed.  there was no logical or business excuse for it except an opportunity to screw over the Celtics organization

I actually think the league would have made the same ruling no matter which team was involved.  The Celtics basically petitioned the NBA to make an exception to salary cap rules in their case and the league said there would be no exceptions.

Not so sure about them applying it evenly.  in any case, it makes no sense for a team to have to carry a deceased player's contract on their payroll for salary cap purposes.  it's one thing if the player is collecting the payment in some manner but sadly, Reggie wasn't collecting anything.

[LooseCannon]

Also aside from losing those 2 not getting any financial relief and continuing to be penalized after Reggies passing certainly added the insult to injury

this is another point that's often forgotten.  That ruling by the NBA screwed the C's for years after Reggie passed.  there was no logical or business excuse for it except an opportunity to screw over the Celtics organization

I actually think the league would have made the same ruling no matter which team was involved.  The Celtics basically petitioned the NBA to make an exception to salary cap rules in their case and the league said there would be no exceptions.

Not so sure about them applying it evenly.  in any case, it makes no sense for a team to have to carry a deceased player's contract on their payroll for salary cap purposes.  it's one thing if the player is collecting the payment in some manner but sadly, Reggie wasn't collecting anything.

It makes no sense that that should be the rule, but from a strict "rule of law" perspective, it makes sense that that should be the ruling, given the rules that were in place at the time.

[MichaelJ]

The points have been made.  The 90's Celtics were to be built on Bias and Lewis and they both died.  Trading Bird, McHale, and Parish might have netted some additional 1st round picks that would have helped build the next team.  However, I think the drafting being so poor was also a major culprit.

[The MadLad]

While not getting Bias was a blow, I disagree that it really set the team back, if only because they never should have had him in the first place.  Obviously it set the team back, but it just set them back to the normal point they should have been at anyways.

It would be like the Heat trading Mario Chalmers away for a draft pick that turns out to be #2 Jabari Parker next year, and then some unfortunate incident happens where Parker never gets to play in the NBA. While obviously that would suck for Miami, I wouldn’t consider that a move that would screw the franchise up, but keeping Dwyane Wade another 5 years at max money would be.

It’s like say you have $2m in the bank, win the lottery and end up with another $1m, so now you have $3m.  Soon after you win the lottery, you get robbed of that $1m you just won, but you still have your original $2m.  Then 5-6 years down the road, through the investments and deals you made, you lose your original $2m.  Then you talk about how that robbery 5-6 years before really screwed up everything for you and caused you to go broke and bankrupt.  Ya I don’t know if I really buy that.

i appreciate the comment. but i think the analogy is way off.
A more accurate analogy would be...you were suppose to get a raise to your salary, but at the last minute your boss decided against it.
you were planning on using that to build for your future. Are you back to normal again? You were suppose to have a positive addition and instead you got nothing. thats not back to normal, thats a net loss.
now what? you can maybe get a raise the next year, but are you now back to "normal" after receiving it? hardly. you are still technically in the hole from missing the raise from the previous year. and so on.
that's why drafting is so crucial to rebuilding teams. if you draft a dud in year 2013 and draft a stud in 2014, are you back to normal? nope, there's a hole in your roster where that 2013 draft pick should be. just like Reggie left a hole in the Celtics roster (complicated by the league ruling on salary) and Bias left a huge hole in the roster.
Interestingly, Paul Pierce playing out his contract wouldn't of left a hole in the roster and also wouldn't of impacted the rebuilding plans. But I guess we cant rake Ainge over the coals for that until it fully plays out and we see how the players and draft picks pan out. I guess.

[17wasEZ]

Also aside from losing those 2 not getting any financial relief and continuing to be penalized after Reggies passing certainly added the insult to injury

this is another point that's often forgotten.  That ruling by the NBA screwed the C's for years after Reggie passed.  there was no logical or business excuse for it except an opportunity to screw over the Celtics organization

I actually think the league would have made the same ruling no matter which team was involved.  The Celtics basically petitioned the NBA to make an exception to salary cap rules in their case and the league said there would be no exceptions.

Not so sure about them applying it evenly.  in any case, it makes no sense for a team to have to carry a deceased player's contract on their payroll for salary cap purposes.  it's one thing if the player is collecting the payment in some manner but sadly, Reggie wasn't collecting anything.

If I'm not mistaken, didn't the C's have to carry McHale's contract at the time also?  I think since he retired earlier than the expiration of his contract the NBA made Boston keep the salary cap number on the books until it expired (even though they didn't have to pay McHale).

As a side note, I found it interesting that the NBA brought the amnesty rule into the league the same year that Shaq was traded from the Lakers.  That meant the Lakers, who had stupid contracts on their books because of the trade with Miami, could just amnesty a guy like Grant and not have to pay for it against their cap.

[17wasEZ]

While not getting Bias was a blow, I disagree that it really set the team back, if only because they never should have had him in the first place.  Obviously it set the team back, but it just set them back to the normal point they should have been at anyways.

It would be like the Heat trading Mario Chalmers away for a draft pick that turns out to be #2 Jabari Parker next year, and then some unfortunate incident happens where Parker never gets to play in the NBA. While obviously that would suck for Miami, I wouldn’t consider that a move that would screw the franchise up, but keeping Dwyane Wade another 5 years at max money would be.

It’s like say you have $2m in the bank, win the lottery and end up with another $1m, so now you have $3m.  Soon after you win the lottery, you get robbed of that $1m you just won, but you still have your original $2m.  Then 5-6 years down the road, through the investments and deals you made, you lose your original $2m.  Then you talk about how that robbery 5-6 years before really screwed up everything for you and caused you to go broke and bankrupt.  Ya I don’t know if I really buy that.

See James Worthy to the Lakers in the early 80's.  Had he died before ever lacing them up for the Lakers, wouldn't you have said that it really would have set the team back? The 80's would have looked a whole lot different had that happened. 

The fact is, it did set the Celtics back.  A player like Bias could have brought another title or two for the original Big 3 as well as prolonged their careers.  Guys like Bias and Lewis could have made the organization a hot spot for free agents for years to come with only a couple of other franchises being better destinations because of weather considerations.

[LatterDayCelticsfan]

Why must the Celtics' dark days of the 90 be attributed to any single event at all? Clearly a whole bunch of things weren't working out on multiple levels.

[aporel#18]

Just because said that, it doesn't mean it's true.

I don't think they held to the Big 3 for too long. Bird and McHale had huge injuries that hurted their games to the point they never were the same players.

If Bias was able to play in the 1986-87, I think McHale would have surgery and recover instead of playing on that broken foot. Also, Bias would have taken some minutes from Larry Legend, allowing him to rest more and MAYBE (you never know) Bird could have played a couple more seasons.

Of course, Bias might never become the MVP he was projected to be, but he would've been a contributor in any case, because of his length, athleticism and offensive game. In the 1984 game against UNC and Jordan, Bias was still 2 years away from the player the Celtics would have gotten, and he was automatic from 18-20 feet. In his last year in Maryland, Bias looked unstoppable on offense, and a beast on D.

Then, when you've survived 4 years of injuries to your best players, and the tragic loss of Bias, you have some young pieces to complement your HOFers. One of them, Reggie Lewis, starts to dominate and look like the second best SG in the NBA. And one day you find out that not only Bird isn't coming through that door, but neither Reggie.

I became a Celtics fan in 1985, after watching them losing to Kareem (and Magic). The next season I was happy to see them win it all, and when I found out they've drafted Bias, I was excited. Then, tragedy and a feeling of what could have been. That set a pessimistic tone, with injuries and the sensation that everything went wrong. When Reggie was hurt against Charlotte, I thought of Bias, and even when I hoped Reggie would be back and playing at 100%, I was scared he could end like Len. Then, it happened, and that was like a dejà vu, but exponentially worse. As a Celtic fan from abroad, with little NBA coverage in 1993, and even less in 1986, I can tell those were the worse moments for the best club in basketball.

It took a lot to recover from those tragedies and the Pitino Disaster, but the Celtics were able to come back thanks to Pierce, Garnett, Allen and the rest. That's the reason why we should thank the 2007-2008 and beyond Celtic teams. And yes, if it was the Lakers or the Knicks, I'm sure Herr Stern would've found a way to help them.

[bdm860]

While not getting Bias was a blow, I disagree that it really set the team back, if only because they never should have had him in the first place.  Obviously it set the team back, but it just set them back to the normal point they should have been at anyways.

It would be like the Heat trading Mario Chalmers away for a draft pick that turns out to be #2 Jabari Parker next year, and then some unfortunate incident happens where Parker never gets to play in the NBA. While obviously that would suck for Miami, I wouldn’t consider that a move that would screw the franchise up, but keeping Dwyane Wade another 5 years at max money would be.

It’s like say you have $2m in the bank, win the lottery and end up with another $1m, so now you have $3m.  Soon after you win the lottery, you get robbed of that $1m you just won, but you still have your original $2m.  Then 5-6 years down the road, through the investments and deals you made, you lose your original $2m.  Then you talk about how that robbery 5-6 years before really screwed up everything for you and caused you to go broke and bankrupt.  Ya I don’t know if I really buy that.

See James Worthy to the Lakers in the early 80's.  Had he died before ever lacing them up for the Lakers, wouldn't you have said that it really would have set the team back? The 80's would have looked a whole lot different had that happened. 

The fact is, it did set the Celtics back.  A player like Bias could have brought another title or two for the original Big 3 as well as prolonged their careers.  Guys like Bias and Lewis could have made the organization a hot spot for free agents for years to come with only a couple of other franchises being better destinations because of weather considerations.

"Set back" is the key term here, and its relative.  Because even with the Bias and Lewis "set back" the Celtics were still way ahead of other franchises.  Yet those other franchises who were already further behind the C's despite the setbacks, were able to turn it around quicker than the Celtics for some reason.

Like Warren Buffet or Bill Gates losing over half their fortunes and getting set back to just $25 billion.  How major of a set back is that compared to everybody else?

Look at a team like Portland.  They wasted a #2 pick that could have been Michael Jordan on Sam Bowie, 2 years later wasted a first round pick on a player (Sabonis) who likely would have been better than Bias and didn't play for the team for 10 years.  Yet 4, 5, 6 years later Portland is still in the Finals, then 7 years after that, they're practically back in the Finals again.  How come they weren't set back like the Celtics?

New Jersey lost Drazen Petrovic the same time the C's lost Lewis, and were already worse then the Celtics.  So they're starting from even further behind, yet they turned it around before the Celtics too.

Dallas lost Roy Tarpley to drugs, kind of like how the C's lost Bias.  Yet they turned that set back around way before the C's.

Crap happens to every team, not just the C's.  To me saying those things are what let to the C's demise and is what kept them down is wrong.

Bad management kept them down.  Look at the moves and picks from '90 to '03.  Blame Gavitt, Carr, Pitino, and Wallace.  Now if you want to include not trading Bird/McHale/Parrish in those lack of any good moves, I think you may have an argument.  Not saying that was necessarily the reason, but the C's didn't make ANY good moves in that time period, if you want to argue not trading them was a bad move, well maybe you're on to something.