OT: Celtics sign Pollard

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
[quote name='Dumpy'][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>

[/QUOTE]</p>

</p>

Mantra: A commonly repeated word or phrase</p>

</p>

Don't patronize me, I'm not stupid.</p>
 
[quote name='Kid Chocolate'][quote name='Dumpy'][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>

[/QUOTE]</p>

</p>

Maybe you're talking to the wrong poster here...</p>

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

Back on topic.</p>

Dumpy, why do you think the Nets' bench is significantly better than the Celtics' bench? </p>

</div>
Will Rondo be a starter or a member of the bench?</p>

Which number in the rotation will Veal be?</p>

Do the Celtics have anyone on the bench as good as Nachbar?</p>
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Premier)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Back on topic.</p>

Dumpy, why do you think the Nets' bench is significantly better than the Celtics' bench? </p>

</div>Part of the problem with this debate is that we have mixed starters and reserves somewhat. We've included Rondo and Perkins in the discussion, but by all indications they'll be starters for the Celtics. So either we eliminate them from the discussion, or we include Krstic and either Magloire or Collins. I don't care either way, but to make this simpler, let's eliminate them.</p><>I like Tony Allen. He really produced last season when he was forced into a more prominent role, until he blew out his knee. House is fine, also, but also knowing that he could get injured again. From what I watched last year, it seemed like he at least tried hard on defense--whether he was effective was hard to really say--and I thought he exhibited tremendous ball movement along the perimeter. Those two guys, if healthy, can be legitimate contributors. The jury is still out on the other guys, though. They are a collection of undrafted rookies and veterans that have never produced consistently or have had large roles with a team (at least recently). Powe, Glen Davis, Scalabrine, Wallace, Pollard--these all strike me as players that should be your 10th to 12th players, yet this group includes their first, second, and third bigs off the bench. Maybe Sean Williams isn't better than these guys, maybe Powe and Glen Davis will be as good as Josh Boone (although I still have faith in Boone), I don't know. But the nets still have Magloire and Nachbar. Who knows what Magloire will provide, but he has shown that he can still contribute somewhere around 10 points and 8 rebounds a night if he plays regularly, and I'm not sure that any of the Celtics' guys can do that. And, even if Nachbar turns back into a pumpkin, he's at least shown the ability to put up 20 points on occassion, and stretch the defense with three-point range from the PF position, and I'm not sure any of the Celtics can do that. Yes, his defense kind of sucks, but we haven't exactly seen what Glen Davis and Brandan Wallace will bring on that side of the court, and Pollard has been mostly injured the past few seasons, if I have that correct. I'm willing to call the Wright/Marcus v. Tony Allen/House comparison a draw for the time being, but again, you've got two guys coming off injury-filled seasons (one who has had major surgery), against two guys who haven't been hurt and are younger. I think the Celtics group might be more comparable the the Nets' bench from two years ago, when they had Jacque Vaughn, Ron Mercer, Buford, and the rest of those low-cost options that were coming off poor or injury-filled seasons.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan)</div><div class='quotemain'>Will Rondo be a starter or a member of the bench?</div>Barring any free agent signing, he will start. He's an effective point guard, but he's not best suited for a half-court offense in which he will have to convert open perimeter shots. Though the Celtics will run the offense through Garnett in the high post, Rondo is fully capable of creating for others. Since he does not have a jump shot, defenders play him loose, preventing his ability to slash to the basket, but he's still effective. Defensively, he can keep up with the likes of Gilbert Arenas, so when he starts to get respect from the refs, he'll be a great defender. </p>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Which number in the rotation will Veal be?</div>I don't think Doc Rivers will even determine this before December, but I guess he will be the first forward off the bench, though it depends on the progression of Glen Davis and Leon Powe in training camp. Both players looked very good in summer league and I expect Davis to be able to be a decent back-up by the end of the season. The Celtics should look to only sign a veteran big man to a two year deal, at most, since I feel that Davis may be good enough to match Paul Millsap's rookie season in '09. </p>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Do the Celtics have anyone on the bench as good as Nachbar?</div>No, not at all. Tony Allen may recover completely, but that's doubtful. The Celtics still must sign a veteran perimeter defender and a veteran center if they want to make it to the Eastern Conference Finals this season, but I feel that their bench is not significantly worse than the Nets, especially considering the way Allen, Garnett, and Pierce will be used. If Doc Rivers is smart, two of the three all-stars will be on the floor at all time. They all command double teams, so the reserves will be left open often. Playing with great players makes you better. </p>
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Premier)</div><div class='quotemain'>

If Doc Rivers is smart, two of the three all-stars will be on the floor at all time. They all command double teams, so the reserves will be left open often. Playing with great players makes you better. </p></div>
This is Doc Rivers we are talking about.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Premier)</div><div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Do the Celtics have anyone on the bench as good as Nachbar?</div>No, not at all. Tony Allen may recover completely, but that's doubtful. The Celtics still must sign a veteran perimeter defender and a veteran center if they want to make it to the Eastern Conference Finals this season, but I feel that their bench is not significantly worse than the Nets, especially considering the way Allen, Garnett, and Pierce will be used. If Doc Rivers is smart, two of the three all-stars will be on the floor at all time. They all command double teams, so the reserves will be left open often. Playing with great players makes you better. </p> </div>That's why this will be fascinating to watch. Can the Celtics uncover a Mikki Moore?
 
[quote name='Dumpy']Part of the problem with this debate is that we have mixed starters and reserves somewhat. We've included Rondo and Perkins in the discussion, but by all indications they'll be starters for the Celtics. So either we eliminate them from the discussion, or we include Krstic and either Magloire or Collins. I don't care either way, but to make this simpler, let's eliminate them.[/quote]Okay, though I must note that I have not included them in bench discussions. </p>

The jury is still out on the other guys, though. They are a collection of undrafted rookies and veterans that have never produced consistently or have had large roles with a team (at least recently). Powe, Glen Davis, Scalabrine, Wallace, Pollard--these all strike me as players that should be your 10th to 12th players, yet this group includes their first, second, and third bigs off the bench.
Click to expand...
Out of that group, Glen Davis is the only guy that I can say will be good enough to make any rotation in the league within the next two years. These guys are serviceable. With the exception of Wallace and Pollard, they will all make a positive impact this season. They each have something to contribute and given limited minutes, they can be quite successful.

Maybe Sean Williams isn't better than these guys, maybe Powe and Glen Davis will be as good as Josh Boone (although I still have faith in Boone), I don't know.
Click to expand...
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Glen Davis and Leon Powe are better, collectively, than Sean Williams and Josh Boone. I'm a big Sean Williams fan, but he's extremely raw. He is a poor rebounder and he takes too much risks in help defense. His offensive game is not developed at all. Al Skinner could have done wonders for him if he managed to stay in school, but he blew that opportunity.

But the nets still have Magloire and Nachbar. Who knows what Magloire will provide, but he has shown that he can still contribute somewhere around 10 points and 8 rebounds a night if he plays regularly, and I'm not sure that any of the Celtics' guys can do that.
Click to expand...
To be fair, you cannot include Magloire if I did not include Perkins. For what it's worth, Magloire is not so much better than Perkins, especially in terms of rebounding and interior defense.

Outside of Nachbar, I think their respective benches are even. </p>
 
yeah, it took me so damn long to write, I forgot tht I agreed to elilminate Magloire. I agree about Sean Williams, but I am still comfortable that Boone will be more productive than Powe and Glen Davis, both this year and in the future, assuming of course that Coach Frank utilizes him. But the Celtics bench is riskier, if only because of the injury history of House, Tony Allen, and Pollard. That has to be taken into account, at least at this point of the season. Of course, you could make the same point about Josh Boone.
 
Yeah. I think Nachbar separates the Nets' bench from the Celtics, but it's not as significant as a difference as some have claimed.
 
I can't see the Celtics being conservative with their money at this point. They have to spend more to get more FA's. Because if they don't they know they're not going to be able to compete with deeper teams in the playoffs.</p>

And Dikembe not being interested in the Celtics doesn't suprise me one bit. Didn't he say he wanted to retire in Houston?</p>
 
does marcus williams not exist any more? does no one think he can make a difference?</p>

out of all the nets and celtics reserves, he may be the only (non-rookie) player with the potential to be a good natural point guard. </p>

and i have seen nothing about hite. did he just disappear? he seems to be a great shooter, who could be equal to eddie house.</p>
 
When I started this post I did not mean to imply that I know the Celtics are done. I was referring to how things are looking now that the signings are unfolding and the roster spots filling up.</p>

Of course they could still use the MLE, but it's not looking likely. We feel your penny-pinching pain Celtics fans!</p>

As for the bench debate, everyone is over looking Collins. I know the guy is an offensive liability, but do the Celtics have anyone on their bench that can come in and bang with Shaq or limit Chris Bosh? Out of the bench bigs people can argue that Powe and Boone are equal and that Sean Williams and Big Baby are equal, but I don't think there is an argument that Collins has better strengths than Pollard. If the Celtics go out and get Motumbo or PJ it would make a difference.</p>

Marcus Williams is better than Pruitt at this stage. And the collection of wings of Wright, Nachbar, and Robinson is slightly better than Scalabrine, Allen, and House. Our wing collection isa little more defense oriented, which is ironic since that is actually what the Celtics need with potent scorers like KG, Allen, and Pierce.</p>

DISCLAIMER:The above analysis assumes everyone makes a full recovery and starts the season healthy.</p>
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Maybe you're talking to the wrong poster here... </p>

</p></div>Maybe I have higher expectations for you.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted)</div><div class='quotemain'>

When I started this post I did not mean to imply that I know the Celtics are done. I was referring to how things are looking now that the signings are unfolding and the roster spots filling up.</p>

Of course they could still use the MLE, but it's not looking likely. We feel your penny-pinching pain Celtics fans!</p>

As for the bench debate, everyone is over looking Collins. I know the guy is an offensive liability, but do the Celtics have anyone on their bench that can come in and bang with Shaq or limit Chris Bosh? Out of the bench bigs people can argue that Powe and Boone are equal and that Sean Williams and Big Baby are equal, but I don't think there is an argument that Collins has better strengths than Pollard. If the Celtics go out and get Motumbo or PJ it would make a difference.</p>

Marcus Williams is better than Pruitt at this stage. And the collection of wings of Wright, Nachbar, and Robinson is slightly better than Scalabrine, Allen, and House. Our wing collection is a little more defense oriented, which is ironic since that is actually what the Celtics need with potent scorers like KG, Allen, and Pierce.</p>

DISCLAIMER: The above analysis assumes everyone makes a full recovery and starts the season healthy.</p></div>Because it is unclear whether Collins or Magloire will be the starter, I kind of glossed over both of them. As for Marcus, I compared him to House, which I think pushed the wing comparison much stronger in the Nets favor. . I agree that Marcus is better than Pruitt, both now and interms of potential. Pruitt and Hite are probably a good comparison in terms of potential and skill, if not an exact match for position.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'>Because it is unclear whether Collins or Magloire will be the starter, I kind of glossed over both of them. As for Marcus, I compared him to House, which I think pushed the wing comparison much stronger in the Nets favor. . I agree that Marcus is better than Pruitt, both now and interms of potential. Pruitt and Hite are probably a good comparison in terms of potential and skill, if not an exact match for position.</div>House can't be counted on to be the everyday back-up at PG. I think he's more of a wing and emergency PG.</p>

You have to make a choice of either Collins or Magloire starting, otherwise you wind up excluding both from the bench comparison. I just chose Magloire to start, which I think will actually happen this year.</p>
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted)</div><div class='quotemain'>

When I started this post I did not mean to imply that I know the Celtics are done. I was referring to how things are looking now that the signings are unfolding and the roster spots filling up.</p>

Of course they could still use the MLE, but it's not looking likely. We feel your penny-pinching pain Celtics fans!</p>

As for the bench debate, everyone is over looking Collins. I know the guy is an offensive liability, but do the Celtics have anyone on their bench that can come in and bang with Shaq or limit Chris Bosh? Out of the bench bigs people can argue that Powe and Boone are equal and that Sean Williams and Big Baby are equal, but I don't think there is an argument that Collins has better strengths than Pollard. If the Celtics go out and get Motumbo or PJ it would make a difference.</p>

Marcus Williams is better than Pruitt at this stage. And the collection of wings of Wright, Nachbar, and Robinson is slightly better than Scalabrine, Allen, and House. Our wing collection is a little more defense oriented, which is ironic since that is actually what the Celtics need with potent scorers like KG, Allen, and Pierce.</p>

DISCLAIMER: The above analysis assumes everyone makes a full recovery and starts the season healthy.</p>

</div>in the cetlics' defense, allen is a really good defensive sg, probably as good as or better than wright. except, with allen's injury, who knows if he'll regain form.</p>

but nachbar>>scalabrine, and as of now, house>>hite. </p>

and robinson hasn't even gotten good playing time in the nba since charlotte a couple years ago, so it remains to be seen what he can do in a nets uniform. looking at his stats (which only tell part of the story), he seems to be a productive player when given minutes, with the ability to score, rebound, and steal pretty good. </p>
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted)</div><div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'>Because it is unclear whether Collins or Magloire will be the starter, I kind of glossed over both of them. As for Marcus, I compared him to House, which I think pushed the wing comparison much stronger in the Nets favor. . I agree that Marcus is better than Pruitt, both now and interms of potential. Pruitt and Hite are probably a good comparison in terms of potential and skill, if not an exact match for position.</div>House can't be counted on to be the everyday back-up at PG. I think he's more of a wing and emergency PG.</p>

You have to make a choice of either Collins or Magloire starting, otherwise you wind up excluding both from the bench comparison. I just chose Magloire to start, which I think will actually happen this year.</p></div>yeah, except that Collins and Perkins might be a better comparison. Like Collins, Perkins' role will probably be just to bang--and never to touch the ball. Certainly never to shoot.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted)</div><div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'>Because it is unclear whether Collins or Magloire will be the starter, I kind of glossed over both of them. As for Marcus, I compared him to House, which I think pushed the wing comparison much stronger in the Nets favor. . I agree that Marcus is better than Pruitt, both now and interms of potential. Pruitt and Hite are probably a good comparison in terms of potential and skill, if not an exact match for position.</div>
House can't be counted on to be the everyday back-up at PG. I think he's more of a wing and emergency PG.</p>

You have to make a choice of either Collins or Magloire starting, otherwise you wind up excluding both from the bench comparison. I just chose Magloire to start, which I think will actually happen this year.</p></div>yeah, except that Collins and Perkins might be a better comparison. Like Collins, Perkins' role will probably be just to bang--and never to touch the ball. Certainly never to shoot.</div>
but perkins will probably start. then wouldn't you compare perkins to magloire? or would you compare magloire to pollard? i'm confused.
 
[quote name='peg182'][quote name='Dumpy'][quote name='Netted']

[quote name='Dumpy']Because it is unclear whether Collins or Magloire will be the starter, I kind of glossed over both of them. As for Marcus, I compared him to House, which I think pushed the wing comparison much stronger in the Nets favor. . I agree that Marcus is better than Pruitt, both now and interms of potential. Pruitt and Hite are probably a good comparison in terms of potential and skill, if not an exact match for position.[/QUOTE]House can't be counted on to be the everyday back-up at PG. I think he's more of a wing and emergency PG.</p>

You have to make a choice of either Collins or Magloire starting, otherwise you wind up excluding both from the bench comparison. I just chose Magloire to start, which I think will actually happen this year.</p>[/QUOTE]yeah, except that Collins and Perkins might be a better comparison. Like Collins, Perkins' role will probably be just to bang--and never to touch the ball. Certainly never to shoot.[/QUOTE] but perkins will probably start. then wouldn't you compare perkins to magloire? or would you compare magloire to pollard? i'm confused.[/QUOTE]I guess I'd prefer to pretend that Collins will definitely start, so I can compare him to Perkins and claim that they are equivalent. Then, the Nets' advantage in the bench becomes more pronounced, because they have no one who can match up with Magloire. So, we could then respond to the position that the Nets' bench is only better because of Boki with the claim that it is better by Boki and Magloire, which looks a lot better.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'>I guess I'd prefer to pretend that Collins will definitely start, so I can compare him to Perkins and claim that they are equivalent. Then, the Nets' advantage in the bench becomes more pronounced, because they have no one who can match up with Magloire. So, we could then respond to the position that the Nets' bench is only better because of Boki with the claim that it is better by Boki and Magloire, which looks a lot better.</div>But Collins still improves our bench was my original point. Currently, the Celtics do not have a better bigman and that says a lot. Rookie comparisons are Williams and Big baby. 2nd year players are Boone and Powe. That leaves Collins and Pollard and I think the majority of people would take Collins even if he is horrific on offense.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NetIncome)</div><div class='quotemain'><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></p>

We actually have 11 guys under contract with guaranteed money. Glen Davis and Gabe Pruitt will be signed, but haven't yet, that would make 13. The 14th guy is Jackie Manuel, who has a completely non-guaranteed contract that likely will get him nothing more than a ticket to training camp and a pat on the back before he returns to the D-League. I bet we have 15-16 guys in camp. </p>
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'>I guess I'd prefer to pretend that Collins will definitely start, so I can compare him to Perkins and claim that they are equivalent. Then, the Nets' advantage in the bench becomes more pronounced, because they have no one who can match up with Magloire. So, we could then respond to the position that the Nets' bench is only better because of Boki with the claim that it is better by Boki and Magloire, which looks a lot better.</div>
But Collins still improves our bench was my original point. Currently, the Celtics do not have a better bigman and that says a lot. Rookie comparisons are Williams and Big baby. 2nd year players are Boone and Powe. That leaves Collins and Pollard and I think the majority of people would take Collins even if he is horrific on offense.</div></p>

Wouldn't you compare Collins with Perkins if he comes off the bench?</p>
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GM3)</div><div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'>I guess I'd prefer to pretend that Collins will definitely start, so I can compare him to Perkins and claim that they are equivalent. Then, the Nets' advantage in the bench becomes more pronounced, because they have no one who can match up with Magloire. So, we could then respond to the position that the Nets' bench is only better because of Boki with the claim that it is better by Boki and Magloire, which looks a lot better.</div>But Collins still improves our bench was my original point. Currently, the Celtics do not have a better bigman and that says a lot. Rookie comparisons are Williams and Big baby. 2nd year players are Boone and Powe. That leaves Collins and Pollard and I think the majority of people would take Collins even if he is horrific on offense.</div></p>

Wouldn't you compare Collins with Perkins if he comes off the bench?</p></div>Perkins will be starting.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Premier)</div><div class='quotemain'>I doubt Brandon Wallace's contract is fully guaranteed.</div></p>

It's not, but he does have some guaranteed money. I think he'll be on the roster, though.</p>
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GM3)</div><div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'>I guess I'd prefer to pretend that Collins will definitely start, so I can compare him to Perkins and claim that they are equivalent. Then, the Nets' advantage in the bench becomes more pronounced, because they have no one who can match up with Magloire. So, we could then respond to the position that the Nets' bench is only better because of Boki with the claim that it is better by Boki and Magloire, which looks a lot better.</div>
But Collins still improves our bench was my original point. Currently, the Celtics do not have a better bigman and that says a lot. Rookie comparisons are Williams and Big baby. 2nd year players are Boone and Powe. That leaves Collins and Pollard and I think the majority of people would take Collins even if he is horrific on offense.</div></p>

Wouldn't you compare Collins with Perkins if he comes off the bench? </p></div>
ugh. this thread has become confusing as hell.
 
Their big 3 are a solid group of playmakers and ball handlers, they don't need to spend too much on a PG. I can see them trying to find a Damon Jones/Eric Snow combo....unless they feel Rondo is like snow defensively. They do need a shooter at the point to open up the lanes. Pollard's good for only 15 minutes a night.
 
<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></div></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>Celtics unwilling to spend? You, sir, are wrong.</p>
 
Nice situational bump b(
happy.gif
)d
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

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