OT: Celtics sign Pollard

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Netted

Netted

Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2007
Messages
1,804
Likes
0
Points
36
BOSTON (Ticker) - The Boston Celtics have apparently taken a step towards filling out their bench by agreeing to a deal with free agent center Scot Pollard. </p>

The Boston Globe is reporting on its web site that the Celtics will sign Pollard to a one-year deal worth the NBA's minimum for a veteran player - $1.2 million. Link</p>

Poor Celtics fans that thought they were spending the MLE and LLE to round out the roster are getting league min vets like House, Manuel, and Pollard. Welcome to our world. I really hope the Nets don't mortgage everything for JON and then do this.</p>
 
Why would you spend more than the Vets min on Pollard? </p>

Everyone expected them to get Vets min FA's in addition to the MLE and LLE. So far they have used part of the MLE on House and signed to minimum players. They still have a good chunk of their MLE and their LLE. </p>
 
I still expect them to use the MLE and LLE. Their best options i think right now are Mutombo and PJ Brown to flesh out the frontcourt. iIm not too keen on the pg market out there, but one option is Mike Wilk(is that his name? lol).</p>

</p>

They need better bigs and a 3rd string pg(im assuming pierce, Rondo, Tony, and House are their pg options right now....sad.)</p>
 
This is a great signing if they can find a time machine and go back 6 years. </p>
 
It's not like the order they sign em is the order they're gonna play 'em. I wouldn't be suprised that agents called the Celtics about their players joining them but they're not all gonna go for the minimim. Guys like Brown, Mutumbo, Bell all have options and are probably negotiating with the Celtics as well as other teams. Signing House, Manuel, and Pollard happened first because nobody else wanted em, that does't mean they couldn't land another player or two. They have the options and the exemptions to pay them I can't think they're thrilled to throw it at the players either. If these guys end up being their entire bench then sure Celtics fans might be worried a bit but if these are their moves to shore up their spots at the end of their bench they're pretty good signings.
 
I completely forgot about Bell. He would be perfect for them.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Why would you spend more than the Vets min on Pollard? </p>

Everyone expected them to get Vets min FA's in addition to the MLE and LLE. So far they have used part of the MLE on House and signed to minimum players. They still have a good chunk of their MLE and their LLE. </p>

</div></p>

</p>

The Herald says they signed him for $1.5 million, which if true is certifiably insane. </p>
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (reganomics813)</div><div class='quotemain'>Guys like Brown, Mutumbo, Bell all have options and are probably negotiating with the Celtics as well as other teams.</div></p>

The Herald says Mutombo wanted too much money and he is off the table....Pollard was the backup plan. They have 14 players under contract, two with partial guarantees: Wallace and Manuel. </p>
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (L)</div><div class='quotemain'>

I still expect them to use the MLE and LLE. Their best options i think right now are Mutombo and PJ Brown to flesh out the frontcourt. iIm not too keen on the pg market out there, but one option is Mike Wilk(is that his name? lol).</p>

</p>

They need better bigs and a 3rd string pg(im assuming pierce, Rondo, Tony, and House are their pg options right now....sad.) </p>

</div></p>

</p>

I expect theyre finished. They have 14 players under contract. There is no indication they are trying to sign Mutombo or Brown. They have big money issues that become HUGE money issues in the next two years. Grousbeck is not the fabulously wealthy owner that a Paul Allen or a Mark Cuban or a Stan Kroneke is. He does not have the huge local television rights deal that Dr. Jerry Buss has. Does anyone here really think that House and Pollard are in the top 10 of remaining free agents? Yet they immediately went for them. Their only hope of succeeding this season is if Rondo, Davis and Pruitt get good fast...and Brian Scalabrine remembers what it's like playing with a group of winners and responds. </p>
 
The Celtics are owned by investment bankers and venture capitalists. They are naturally cheap, but they do have money. Steve Pagiluca, a managing partner for the Celtics, offered to buy the thirty NHL teams for 3.5B. Wyc Grousbeck ran Highland Capital. They are definitely wealthy and accoridng to Paglicua, the Celtics will pay five to ten million dollars in luxury tax this season, meaning they will likely use another 1.63M-6.63M to fill out the roster - money they will definitely make up for if the team can advance to the Eastern Conference Finals.</p>

By the way. How does the following Herald quote state tahat Mutombo wanted more money than the Celtics were willing to offer?:</p>

<font><font><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The Pollard signing may also signal the end of the Celtics&rsquo; interest in Dikembe Mutombo - the veteran free agent center who appears to be more interested in remaining in Houston.</div>
Houston made a veteran's minimum offer, too. </font></font></p>
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted)</div><div class='quotemain'>

BOSTON (Ticker) - The Boston Celtics have apparently taken a step towards filling out their bench by agreeing to a deal with free agent center Scot Pollard. </p>

The Boston Globe is reporting on its web site that the Celtics will sign Pollard to a one-year deal worth the NBA's minimum for a veteran player - $1.2 million. Link</p>

Poor Celtics fans that thought they were spending the MLE and LLE to round out the roster are getting league min vets like House, Manuel, and Pollard. Welcome to our world. I really hope the Nets don't mortgage everything for JON and then do this.</p>

</div></p>

We're still not done, and we still have the MLE to work with. There is absolutely nothing wrong with signing Scot Pollard for the veteran's mininum, which doesn't even count against the MLE. He can help us defensively and on the boards in small doses, he has experience, and he's a major goof ball that will be great in the locker room.</p>
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Premier)</div><div class='quotemain'>

The Celtics are owned by investment bankers and venture capitalists. They are naturally cheap, but they do have money. Steve Pagiluca, a managing partner for the Celtics, offered to buy the thirty NHL teams for 3.5B. Wyc Grousbeck ran Highland Capital. They are definitely wealthy and accoridng to Paglicua, the Celtics will pay five to ten million dollars in luxury tax this season, meaning they will likely use another 2.4M-7.4M to fill out the roster - money they will definitely make up for if the team can advance to the Eastern Conference Finals.</p>

By the way. How does the following Herald quote state tahat Mutombo wanted more money than the Celtics were willing to offer?:</p>

<font><font><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The Pollard signing may also signal the end of the Celtics&rsquo; interest in Dikembe Mutombo - the veteran free agent center who appears to be more interested in remaining in Houston.</div>Houston made a veteran's minimum offer, too. </font></font></p>

</div></p>

</p>

I see we are in denial here. This is good. The evidence is quite clear, or should be, that the Celtics ownership has shot their wad on the "Big Three (Who Haven't Made the Playoffs in Two Years". I see no response re the choice of two subpar journeymen, House and Pollard as the first signings after the KG trade. None of the owners, I reiterate, are fabulously wealthy like Allen ($25 BILLION) or Cuban ($8 BILLION) or Kroneke ($2+ BILLION plus his wife is a Walton). </p>

These guys have quite obviosly given Ainge his marching orders: make due with what you have. NO more big contracts, no more mid level contracts either. Good Luck featuring Brian "Brain Type" Scalabrine. </p>

</p>

</p>
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticBalla32)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted)</div><div class='quotemain'>

BOSTON (Ticker) - The Boston Celtics have apparently taken a step towards filling out their bench by agreeing to a deal with free agent center Scot Pollard. </p>

The Boston Globe is reporting on its web site that the Celtics will sign Pollard to a one-year deal worth the NBA's minimum for a veteran player - $1.2 million. Link</p>

Poor Celtics fans that thought they were spending the MLE and LLE to round out the roster are getting league min vets like House, Manuel, and Pollard. Welcome to our world. I really hope the Nets don't mortgage everything for JON and then do this.</p>

</div></p>

We're still not done, and we still have the MLE to work with. There is absolutely nothing wrong with signing Scot Pollard for the veteran's mininum, which doesn't even count against the MLE. He can help us defensively and on the boards in small doses, he has experience, and he's a major goof ball that will be great in the locker room. </p>

</div></p>

Fourteen players under contract. Pretty much done. Maybe well done. </p>

</p>
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NetIncome)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Premier)</div><div class='quotemain'>

The Celtics are owned by investment bankers and venture capitalists. They are naturally cheap, but they do have money. Steve Pagiluca, a managing partner for the Celtics, offered to buy the thirty NHL teams for 3.5B. Wyc Grousbeck ran Highland Capital. They are definitely wealthy and accoridng to Paglicua, the Celtics will pay five to ten million dollars in luxury tax this season, meaning they will likely use another 2.4M-7.4M to fill out the roster - money they will definitely make up for if the team can advance to the Eastern Conference Finals.</p>

By the way. How does the following Herald quote state tahat Mutombo wanted more money than the Celtics were willing to offer?:</p>

<font><font><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The Pollard signing may also signal the end of the Celtics&rsquo; interest in Dikembe Mutombo - the veteran free agent center who appears to be more interested in remaining in Houston.</div>
Houston made a veteran's minimum offer, too. </font></font></p>

</div></p>

</p>

I see we are in denial here. This is good. The evidence is quite clear, or should be, that the Celtics ownership has shot their wad on the "Big Three (Who Haven't Made the Playoffs in Two Years". I see no response re the choice of two subpar journeymen, House and Pollard as the first signings after the KG trade. None of the owners, I reiterate, are fabulously wealthy like Allen ($25 BILLION) or Cuban ($8 BILLION) or Kroneke ($2+ BILLION plus his wife is a Walton). </p>

These guys have quite obviosly given Ainge his marching orders: make due with what you have. NO more big contracts, no more mid level contracts either. Good Luck featuring Brian "Brain Type" Scalabrine. </p>

</p>

</p>

</div></p>

</p>

So when the Managing Partner of the Celtics tells the press how much he is planning to spend he isn't telling the truth, but if Ratner says in a qualified way that he is willing to pay the luxury tax it is to be believed. What a load of horse ****</p>
 
[quote name='cpawfan'][quote name='NetIncome'][quote name='Premier']

The Celtics are owned by investment bankers and venture capitalists. They are naturally cheap, but they do have money. Steve Pagiluca, a managing partner for the Celtics, offered to buy the thirty NHL teams for 3.5B. Wyc Grousbeck ran Highland Capital. They are definitely wealthy and accoridng to Paglicua, the Celtics will pay five to ten million dollars in luxury tax this season, meaning they will likely use another 2.4M-7.4M to fill out the roster - money they will definitely make up for if the team can advance to the Eastern Conference Finals.</p>

By the way. How does the following Herald quote state tahat Mutombo wanted more money than the Celtics were willing to offer?:</p>

<font><font>
The Pollard signing may also signal the end of the Celtics&rsquo; interest in Dikembe Mutombo - the veteran free agent center who appears to be more interested in remaining in Houston.
Click to expand...
Houston made a veteran's minimum offer, too. </font></font></p>

[/QUOTE]</p>

</p>

I see we are in denial here. This is good. The evidence is quite clear, or should be, that the Celtics ownership has shot their wad on the "Big Three (Who Haven't Made the Playoffs in Two Years". I see no response re the choice of two subpar journeymen, House and Pollard as the first signings after the KG trade. None of the owners, I reiterate, are fabulously wealthy like Allen ($25 BILLION) or Cuban ($8 BILLION) or Kroneke ($2+ BILLION plus his wife is a Walton). </p>

These guys have quite obviosly given Ainge his marching orders: make due with what you have. NO more big contracts, no more mid level contracts either. Good Luck featuring Brian "Brain Type" Scalabrine. </p>

</p>

</p>

[/QUOTE]</p>

</p>

So when the Managing Partner of the Celtics tells the press how much he is planning to spend he isn't telling the truth, but if Ratner says in a qualified way that he is willing to pay the luxury tax it is to be believed. What a load of horse **** </p>

[/QUOTE]</p>

</p>

Remember, it's ok to beleive in all of your own team's hype, but you can't believe in any of any opposition teams' hype. ALL home team, NONE other teams. </p>
 
Stop getting off topic. This is about the Celtics, not the Nets and what Ratner may or may not do. There's no need to bait or ridicule NetIncome. Save that for the other board; I'm surprised that the two of you felt the need to bring your baggage with your user names when you migrated here.</p>

</p><>As far as I'm concerned, my reaction to the Celtics is basically: Show me the money. And I don't mean the money to pay any luxury tax; I mean the players that are at least NBA-average contributors off the bench. I'll give you Tony Allen, although the jury has to be out until we see how well he performs with his reconstructed knee. Those other guys may have one or two redeeming qualities each, but overall they are a pathetic group of below-average players with little or no potential. Net Income is correct--even a Seton Hall grad can look at a roster and correctly count up the number of names--but Manual and Wallace could easily be pushed aside if there are any larger signings. Again: Show me the money. Pollard is equivalent to a guy like Cliff Robinson as far as I'm concerned. The missing part to a championship run? Hardly.
 
No baggage, just calling it like I see it. </p>

</p>

Don't tell me what to do.</p>
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NetIncome)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Premier)</div><div class='quotemain'>

The Celtics are owned by investment bankers and venture capitalists. They are naturally cheap, but they do have money. Steve Pagiluca, a managing partner for the Celtics, offered to buy the thirty NHL teams for 3.5B. Wyc Grousbeck ran Highland Capital. They are definitely wealthy and accoridng to Paglicua, the Celtics will pay five to ten million dollars in luxury tax this season, meaning they will likely use another 1.63M-6.63M to fill out the roster - money they will definitely make up for if the team can advance to the Eastern Conference Finals.</p>

By the way. How does the following Herald quote state tahat Mutombo wanted more money than the Celtics were willing to offer?:</p>

<font><font><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The Pollard signing may also signal the end of the Celtics&rsquo; interest in Dikembe Mutombo - the veteran free agent center who appears to be more interested in remaining in Houston.</div>
Houston made a veteran's minimum offer, too. </font></font></p>

</div></p>

</p>

I see we are in denial here. This is good. The evidence is quite clear, or should be, that the Celtics ownership has shot their wad on the "Big Three (Who Haven't Made the Playoffs in Two Years". I see no response re the choice of two subpar journeymen, House and Pollard as the first signings after the KG trade. None of the owners, I reiterate, are fabulously wealthy like Allen ($25 BILLION) or Cuban ($8 BILLION) or Kroneke ($2+ BILLION plus his wife is a Walton). </p>

These guys have quite obviosly given Ainge his marching orders: make due with what you have. NO more big contracts, no more mid level contracts either. Good Luck featuring Brian "Brain Type" Scalabrine.</div>Make a point next time.
</p>
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Stop getting off topic. This is about the Celtics, not the Nets and what Ratner may or may not do. There's no need to bait or ridicule NetIncome. Save that for the other board; I'm surprised that the two of you felt the need to bring your baggage with your user names when you migrated here.</p>

</p>

<>As far as I'm concerned, my reaction to the Celtics is basically: Show me the money. And I don't mean the money to pay any luxury tax; I mean the players that are at least NBA-average contributors off the bench. I'll give you Tony Allen, although the jury has to be out until we see how well he performs with his reconstructed knee. Those other guys may have one or two redeeming qualities each, but overall they are a pathetic group of below-average players with little or no potential. Net Income is correct--even a Seton Hall grad can look at a roster and correctly count up the number of names--but Manual and Wallace could easily be pushed aside if there are any larger signings. Again: Show me the money. Pollard is equivalent to a guy like Cliff Robinson as far as I'm concerned. The missing part to a championship run? Hardly.</div>
There is no baggage Dumpy, there is only a quest for honesty. The Celtics have said they will pay the luxury tax and how much they expect to spend. Prem has calculated for everyone what that means in terms of additional salary ownership is willing to add. </p>

Anyone attempting to draw conclusions from this move and the House signing is being an idiot. The Celtics have had 1 week to obtain Free Agents for this roster and the roster doesn't have to be at 15 for quite some time.</p>

You are the one that is attempting to defend the indefensible</p>

</p>
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate)</div><div class='quotemain'>

No baggage, just calling it like I see it. </p>

</p>

Don't tell me what to do. </p></div>Grow up. "No baggage?" What the hell does that mean? You're referring entirely to posts and exchanges made on an entirely separate board. If that doesn't constitute "baggage," I don't know what is. Regardless, why does supporting your own team's decisions and management prevent you from being critical of other teams? That's just an idiotic position, and I expect better from you. NetIncome makes some fair points. If this board is merely going to devolve into lobbing insults and a refusal to credit opinions by posters that express opinions you don't like, then I see no reason why I should choose it over the other one.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate)</div><div class='quotemain'>

No baggage, just calling it like I see it. </p>

</p>

Don't tell me what to do. </p>

</div>Grow up. "No baggage?" What the hell does that mean? You're referring entirely to posts and exchanges made on an entirely separate board. If that doesn't constitute "baggage," I don't know what is. Regardless, why does supporting your own team's decisions and management prevent you from being critical of other teams? That's just an idiotic position, and I expect better from you. NetIncome makes some fair points. If this board is merely going to devolve into lobbing insults and a refusal to credit opinions by posters that express opinions you don't like, then I see no reason why I should choose it over the other one.</div>
No, he didn't make any fair or reasonable points.</p>

There is difference between supporting your team and blindly swallowing everything their PR department puts out. Honesty requires applying the same standards to how you evaluate the ownership & management of your team and the ownership & management of other teams. Blind homerism doesn't have a place.</p>
 
Am I supposed to erase my opinion of someone? It's not like this board means it's a fresh start for all. Most of us still 'know' each other, and have opinions. </p>

Refusal to credit opinions by posters that express opinions you don't like?</p>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NetIncome)</div><div class='quotemain'>I see we are in denial here.</div></p>

What do you call that? </p>

</p>

I don't see why you are coming at me telling me to leave my baggage behind, but will continue to allow some to act like a jackass, no matter what. No one gets preferential treatment, you make a good point, I'll call that. You act like a jackass, I'll call that. You make a dumb point, I'll argue.</p>
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Stop getting off topic. This is about the Celtics, not the Nets and what Ratner may or may not do. There's no need to bait or ridicule NetIncome. Save that for the other board; I'm surprised that the two of you felt the need to bring your baggage with your user names when you migrated here.</p>

</p>

<>As far as I'm concerned, my reaction to the Celtics is basically: Show me the money. And I don't mean the money to pay any luxury tax; I mean the players that are at least NBA-average contributors off the bench. I'll give you Tony Allen, although the jury has to be out until we see how well he performs with his reconstructed knee. Those other guys may have one or two redeeming qualities each, but overall they are a pathetic group of below-average players with little or no potential. Net Income is correct--even a Seton Hall grad can look at a roster and correctly count up the number of names--but Manual and Wallace could easily be pushed aside if there are any larger signings. Again: Show me the money. Pollard is equivalent to a guy like Cliff Robinson as far as I'm concerned. The missing part to a championship run? Hardly.</div>There is no baggage Dumpy, there is only a quest for honesty. The Celtics have said they will pay the luxury tax and how much they expect to spend. Prem has calculated for everyone what that means in terms of additional salary ownership is willing to add. </p>

Anyone attempting to draw conclusions from this move and the House signing is being an idiot. The Celtics have had 1 week to obtain Free Agents for this roster and the roster doesn't have to be at 15 for quite some time.</p>

You are the one that is attempting to defend the indefensible </p>

</p>

</div></p>

What I do is treat all posters and posts with the same amount of respect. Other than that, you are incorrect in your analysis of what I am "attempting" to do.</p>

Your point is a little logically inconsistent. You say, "Anyone attempting to draw conclusions from this move and the House signing is being an idiot. The Celtics have had 1 week to obtain Free Agents for this roster and the roster doesn't have to be at 15 for quite some time." The fact that, as you say, the Celtics do not have to be at 15 players for "some time," yet chose to sign Pollard and House within days of making the Garnett acquisition, DOES speak towards their intent to complete the roster as quickly as possible (unless they thought that these guys would have gotten away had they not acted swiftly, which may be debatable with regard to House). I believe that the better response is to point out that neither Wallace nor Manual have guarranteed contracts, and so their deals should not be counted against the roster limit at this point, any more than Hite should be counted against the Nets'. Thus, the Celtics really only have 12 players under contract by any count, with two or three additional slots to fill. Of course, as the only poster in all of NetsWorld that treats all posters with respect, I guess I shouldn't expect any one else to share that position. </p>
 
Back on topic.</p>

Dumpy, why do you think the Nets' bench is significantly better than the Celtics' bench? </p>
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Stop getting off topic. This is about the Celtics, not the Nets and what Ratner may or may not do. There's no need to bait or ridicule NetIncome. Save that for the other board; I'm surprised that the two of you felt the need to bring your baggage with your user names when you migrated here.</p>

</p>

<>As far as I'm concerned, my reaction to the Celtics is basically: Show me the money. And I don't mean the money to pay any luxury tax; I mean the players that are at least NBA-average contributors off the bench. I'll give you Tony Allen, although the jury has to be out until we see how well he performs with his reconstructed knee. Those other guys may have one or two redeeming qualities each, but overall they are a pathetic group of below-average players with little or no potential. Net Income is correct--even a Seton Hall grad can look at a roster and correctly count up the number of names--but Manual and Wallace could easily be pushed aside if there are any larger signings. Again: Show me the money. Pollard is equivalent to a guy like Cliff Robinson as far as I'm concerned. The missing part to a championship run? Hardly.</div>There is no baggage Dumpy, there is only a quest for honesty. The Celtics have said they will pay the luxury tax and how much they expect to spend. Prem has calculated for everyone what that means in terms of additional salary ownership is willing to add. </p>

Anyone attempting to draw conclusions from this move and the House signing is being an idiot. The Celtics have had 1 week to obtain Free Agents for this roster and the roster doesn't have to be at 15 for quite some time.</p>

You are the one that is attempting to defend the indefensible </p>

</p>

</div></p>

</p>

What I do is treat all posters and posts with the same amount of respect. Other than that, you are incorrect in your analysis of what I am "attempting" to do. </p>

Your point is a little logically inconsistent. You say, "Anyone attempting to draw conclusions from this move and the House signing is being an idiot. The Celtics have had 1 week to obtain Free Agents for this roster and the roster doesn't have to be at 15 for quite some time." The fact that, as you say, the Celtics do not have to be at 15 players for "some time," yet chose to sign Pollard and House within days of making the Garnett acquisition, DOES speak towards their intent to complete the roster as quickly as possible (unless they thought that these guys would have gotten away had they not acted swiftly, which may be debatable with regard to House). I believe that the better response is to point out that neither Wallace nor Manual have guarranteed contracts, and so their deals should not be counted against the roster limit at this point, any more than Hite should be counted against the Nets'. Thus, the Celtics really only have 12 players under contract by any count, with two or three additional slots to fill. Of course, as the only poster in all of NetsWorld that treats all posters with respect, I guess I shouldn't expect any one else to share that position. </p>

</div></p>

</p>

Have you ever heard of 'you've got to give respect to get respect?'</p>

</p>

That's my mantra.</p>
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate)</div><div class='quotemain'>

No baggage, just calling it like I see it. </p>

</p>

Don't tell me what to do. </p>

</div>Grow up. "No baggage?" What the hell does that mean? You're referring entirely to posts and exchanges made on an entirely separate board. If that doesn't constitute "baggage," I don't know what is. Regardless, why does supporting your own team's decisions and management prevent you from being critical of other teams? That's just an idiotic position, and I expect better from you. NetIncome makes some fair points. If this board is merely going to devolve into lobbing insults and a refusal to credit opinions by posters that express opinions you don't like, then I see no reason why I should choose it over the other one.</div>No, he didn't make any fair or reasonable points.</p>

There is difference between supporting your team and blindly swallowing everything their PR department puts out. Honesty requires applying the same standards to how you evaluate the ownership & management of your team and the ownership & management of other teams. Blind homerism doesn't have a place.</p></div>See, I disagree. He made reasonable points regarding the liklihood that the Celtics will sign additional free agents. Whether you agree or not is irrelevant for this purpose, and the fact that NetIncome has shown blind homerism towards the Nets doesn't make his views regarding the Celtics any less valid. Suporting one team does not negate criticism of another team. You may disagree with his assessment--for instance, you could simply argue that it is irrelevant whether ownership has five billion dollars or one billion dollars when it comes to the likelihood or access to resources needed to pay the luxury tax of a few million dollars--but that doesn't make it less valid.
 
[quote name='Kid Chocolate'][quote name='Dumpy'][quote name='cpawfan'][quote name='Dumpy']

Stop getting off topic. This is about the Celtics, not the Nets and what Ratner may or may not do. There's no need to bait or ridicule NetIncome. Save that for the other board; I'm surprised that the two of you felt the need to bring your baggage with your user names when you migrated here.</p>

</p>

<>As far as I'm concerned, my reaction to the Celtics is basically: Show me the money. And I don't mean the money to pay any luxury tax; I mean the players that are at least NBA-average contributors off the bench. I'll give you Tony Allen, although the jury has to be out until we see how well he performs with his reconstructed knee. Those other guys may have one or two redeeming qualities each, but overall they are a pathetic group of below-average players with little or no potential. Net Income is correct--even a Seton Hall grad can look at a roster and correctly count up the number of names--but Manual and Wallace could easily be pushed aside if there are any larger signings. Again: Show me the money. Pollard is equivalent to a guy like Cliff Robinson as far as I'm concerned. The missing part to a championship run? Hardly. [/QUOTE]There is no baggage Dumpy, there is only a quest for honesty. The Celtics have said they will pay the luxury tax and how much they expect to spend. Prem has calculated for everyone what that means in terms of additional salary ownership is willing to add. </p>

Anyone attempting to draw conclusions from this move and the House signing is being an idiot. The Celtics have had 1 week to obtain Free Agents for this roster and the roster doesn't have to be at 15 for quite some time.</p>

You are the one that is attempting to defend the indefensible </p>

</p>

[/QUOTE]</p>

</p>

What I do is treat all posters and posts with the same amount of respect. Other than that, you are incorrect in your analysis of what I am "attempting" to do. </p>

Your point is a little logically inconsistent. You say, "Anyone attempting to draw conclusions from this move and the House signing is being an idiot. The Celtics have had 1 week to obtain Free Agents for this roster and the roster doesn't have to be at 15 for quite some time." The fact that, as you say, the Celtics do not have to be at 15 players for "some time," yet chose to sign Pollard and House within days of making the Garnett acquisition, DOES speak towards their intent to complete the roster as quickly as possible (unless they thought that these guys would have gotten away had they not acted swiftly, which may be debatable with regard to House). I believe that the better response is to point out that neither Wallace nor Manual have guarranteed contracts, and so their deals should not be counted against the roster limit at this point, any more than Hite should be counted against the Nets'. Thus, the Celtics really only have 12 players under contract by any count, with two or three additional slots to fill. Of course, as the only poster in all of NetsWorld that treats all posters with respect, I guess I shouldn't expect any one else to share that position. </p>

[/QUOTE]</p>

</p>

Have you ever heard of 'you've got to give respect to get respect?'</p>

</p>

That's my mantra. </p>

[/QUOTE]</p>

I'm not sure you know the definitiion of "mantra," but regardless, I believe that you GAIN respect by showing respect, and never deviating from that.</p>
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'>

</p>

What I do is treat all posters and posts with the same amount of respect. Other than that, you are incorrect in your analysis of what I am "attempting" to do. </p>

Your point is a little logically inconsistent. You say, "Anyone attempting to draw conclusions from this move and the House signing is being an idiot. The Celtics have had 1 week to obtain Free Agents for this roster and the roster doesn't have to be at 15 for quite some time." The fact that, as you say, the Celtics do not have to be at 15 players for "some time," yet chose to sign Pollard and House within days of making the Garnett acquisition, DOES speak towards their intent to complete the roster as quickly as possible (unless they thought that these guys would have gotten away had they not acted swiftly, which may be debatable with regard to House). I believe that the better response is to point out that neither Wallace nor Manual have guarranteed contracts, and so their deals should not be counted against the roster limit at this point, any more than Hite should be counted against the Nets'. Thus, the Celtics really only have 12 players under contract by any count, with two or three additional slots to fill. Of course, as the only poster in all of NetsWorld that treats all posters with respect, I guess I shouldn't expect any one else to share that position.
</p>

</div>
No, it speaks to their desire add players to their roster and says nothing about the time frame for completion of the roster. The status of Wallace and Manual shouldn't have to be pointed out, however, in order to respond to dishonest, you had to point it out.</p>

</p>

I have a greater problem with posters showing a lack of respect to non-Nets fans in this forum than I do with the interaction between the Nets fans. I responded to that lack of respect.</p>
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'>See, I disagree. He made reasonable points regarding the liklihood that the Celtics will sign additional free agents. Whether you agree or not is irrelevant for this purpose, and the fact that NetIncome has shown blind homerism towards the Nets doesn't make his views regarding the Celtics any less valid. Suporting one team does not negate criticism of another team. You may disagree with his assessment--for instance, you could simply argue that it is irrelevant whether ownership has five billion dollars or one billion dollars when it comes to the likelihood or access to resources needed to pay the luxury tax of a few million dollars--but that doesn't make it less valid.</div>
The points weren't reasonable and it absolutely makes his views less valid. Blind homerism always impacts one's lens with which they view other teams. There is a huge world of difference between supporting a team and being a blind homer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top