OT: Marbury possibly to Celts

[Drink Your Milkshake]

That might be true... what IS true is that they are one of the few teams that, as they are presently constructed, have a very, very good chance of winning the title this year.

I guess I just don't see the upside for Boston. I'm normally a "get talent" and "chemistry is a myth" kinda guy, but in the case of the Celtics? They're so good and they have their roles so well defined that I just see this as a situation that might blow up in their faces without really seeing an upside to it...

Ed O.

Take this shit to the general forum

 

[DaRizzle]

Deleted. Personal attacks. I don't know what your problem is, but this is ridiculous.

So when are we gonna have to stop dealing with this mods? I thought the last thread where he cussed everybody out would have done it but his posts were completely deleted instead.

 

[Drink Your Milkshake]

So when are we gonna have to stop dealing with this mods? I thought the last thread where he cussed everybody out would have done it but his posts were completely deleted instead.

"Do you really dont get it? Its been like this for a long time because this is how the POR forum does it."

 

[Ed O]

Please. The C's bought a Championship for one year. Prior to that, you only made the playoffs four times since 1996. And the last time the C's were winning championships, you were probably soiling your Pampers.

Get off your high horse.

You think they "bought" a championship? I disagree totally.

Ainge did a great job of pulling the pieces together. That he was able to do it almost overnight should be a point in his favor, in my opinion, rather than the target of derision.

With the Celtics' core be threatening for a title four years from now? Almost certainly not. But will they for the next couple, with one ring already in the bank? Yes. That is what every GM wishes he could accomplish.

Ed O.

 

[DaRizzle]

Take this shit to the general forum

<object width="480" height="295"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="295"></embed></object>

 

[BrianFromWA]

i'm with you, Ed. I give Ainge credit for being able to pull off the deals he did, even though it seems like total Ainge-slaps for Allen (less so for KG, though).

 

[Ed O]

Take this shit to the general forum

No.

Ed O.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Take this shit to the general forum

Did you know that Decaf coffee has the same robust aroma and flavor of regular coffee, without those annoying coffee jitters?

Just saying.....

 

[44Thrilla]

Your point? The Blazers had the misfortune of an untimely injury to their star after 1977 that interrupted what was sure to be a dynasty in the making. They also had the misfortune of fielding some of their best teams when Michael Jordan was coming into his prime and when the Lakers were dominating with Shaq and Kobe.

Big deal. There are more teams in the league with one title or no titles than there are teams with multiples.

-Pop

There's only one team with 17, though. The same team that had 2 of their best players in a 12 year span die on them. No excuses, please.

 

[SodaPopinski]

There's only one team with 17, though. The same team that had 2 of their best players in a 12 year span die on them. No excuses, please.

History only means something in sports if it's recent. Nobody has more Super Bowl victories than the 49ers. Anyone want to argue that they're more relevant than the Patriots? Or the Colts?

Were any of your current players potty-trained the last time the Celtics won a title? Prior to this last year, I don't think you could make the argument Boston was any more relevant than the Blazers. And the Blazers had at least made some noise in the playoffs at that point since the invention of the internet.

-Pop

 

[Ed O]

History only means something in sports if it's recent.

Again I disagree.

Maybe you just have a different perspective on the meaning of history in the NBA, but the Celtics have had periods of dominance in every era in league history. It was a bit of a stretch between the Bird-led teams and the current batch, but the franchise has been remarkable on a variety of fronts and I'm not sure why you're so quick to dismiss past success just because it's in the past.

Ed O.

 

[44Thrilla]

History only means something in sports if it's recent. Nobody has more Super Bowl victories than the 49ers. Anyone want to argue that they're more relevant than the Patriots? Or the Colts?

Were any of your current players potty-trained the last time the Celtics won a title? Prior to this last year, I don't think you could make the argument Boston was any more relevant than the Blazers. And the Blazers had at least made some noise in the playoffs at that point since the invention of the internet.

-Pop

The Celtics have made it out of the first round 3 times since the Blazers last did, one of them to the conference finals, which was also the deepest you guys have made it in 17 years, as well.

 

[Natebishop3]

You think they "bought" a championship? I disagree totally.

Ainge did a great job of pulling the pieces together. That he was able to do it almost overnight should be a point in his favor, in my opinion, rather than the target of derision.

With the Celtics' core be threatening for a title four years from now? Almost certainly not. But will they for the next couple, with one ring already in the bank? Yes. That is what every GM wishes he could accomplish.

Ed O.

I'd say Ainge mortaged the future for the present. Green and Jefferson will be very good players. Brewer I'm not so sure.

 

[44Thrilla]

I'd say Ainge mortaged the future for the present. Green and Jefferson will be very good players. Brewer I'm not so sure.

Gerald Green will not be a good player.

 

[Ed O]

Gerald Green will not be a good player.

He meant Jeff Green, who the Sonics picked with Boston's draft pick.

As for mortgaging the future: maybe he did. I think, personally, that mortgaging the future for a championship--and an opportunity to win another one or two--is totally worth it.

Ed O.

 

[44Thrilla]

He meant Jeff Green, who the Sonics picked with Boston's draft pick.

As for mortgaging the future: maybe he did. I think, personally, that mortgaging the future for a championship--and an opportunity to win another one or two--is totally worth it.

Ed O.

haha, I hope he meant Jeff.

 

[Minstrel]

I think, personally, that mortgaging the future for a championship--and an opportunity to win another one or two--is totally worth it.

Agree completely. Unless you have an amazing collection of young talent that seems poised to win a lot for many years, which Boston did not, turning it into 1-3 championship shots (one already cashed in) is a no-doubt win.

 

[Natebishop3]

Agree completely. Unless you have an amazing collection of young talent that seems poised to win a lot for many years, which Boston did not, turning it into 1-3 championship shots (one already cashed in) is a no-doubt win.

I didn't say it was a bad move. It worked for them. I think they were pretty good trades though, for both teams. Minnesota could have probably gotten more for KG though.

 

[Ed O]

I didn't say it was a bad move. It worked for them. I think they were pretty good trades though, for both teams. Minnesota could have probably gotten more for KG though.

With McHale in charge?

...

It's shocking he even got Jefferson in the deal. He should have demanded Perkins.



Ed O.

 

[barfo]

I didn't say it was a bad move. It worked for them. I think they were pretty good trades though, for both teams. Minnesota could have probably gotten more for KG though.

If they'd demoted McHale sooner they could have, anyway.

barfo