What really set the Celtics back in the 1990's

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: What really set the Celtics back in the 1990's

    Signing Dominique definitely set them back. Was it in the the early 90's? Nope it was the middle of 1994. Was that Gavitt. Nope it was Red.

    I showed you were WRONG to say that.

    Did you admit yet that you didn't know about Gavitt wanting to tank and instead being demoted and allowed to leave and RED being the one to sign Wilkins? Nope.

    I did not say you were wrong to wish Gavitt did with McHale/Parish what Danny did with Pierce/KG. I just said there was no way the offers were anywhere near as good and that the best time to make moves was 1989 under Red's watch. If you disagree you are wrong. This thread is about what REALLY set the 90's back.

    You were also wrong when you said McDaniels was signed after Lewis died.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: What really set the Celtics back in the 1990's

    Fiercy,

    This thread is about a 5 month period in 1989 that hurt the teams ability to rebuild more than ANYTHING Gavitt failed to do in the 12 months between when Bird retired and Lewis died.

    Can you admit that moment set them back more?

    The 5 months in which Red blew the '89 trade deadline and draft hurt the Boston Celtics ability to rebuild for the 90's more than anything Gavitt did after Bird retitred and Lewis died.

    If someone offered the Celtics 1st round picks in 1993, 1995 and 1997 plus a 29 year old near double-double PF for McHale and Parish in July of 1992, and Gavitt turned it down, I'm sure we would have heard about it:-)

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from puddinpuddin. Show puddinpuddin's posts

    Re: What really set the Celtics back in the 1990's

    In response to Fiercy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    rame

     

    The Celtic front office of the 1990s DID NOTHING!

     

    Ainge took over in the summer of 2003 and the Celts were champs in 2008.

    It only took Ainge 5 years to turn the Celtics into contenders.

     

    What did Gavitt and the rest of the Celtic front office do to make the Celtics contenders again back in the 1990s?

    NOTHING!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Your simple statements covering the 1990's are patently absurd.

    What you know about this era of Celtic basketball is apparently NOTHING!

    But by all means... keep saying it.

    That way you have nothing to defend.

    Pud

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: What really set the Celtics back in the 1990's

    In response to puddinpuddin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Fiercy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    rame

     

    The Celtic front office of the 1990s DID NOTHING!

     

    Ainge took over in the summer of 2003 and the Celts were champs in 2008.

    It only took Ainge 5 years to turn the Celtics into contenders.

     

    What did Gavitt and the rest of the Celtic front office do to make the Celtics contenders again back in the 1990s?

    NOTHING!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Your simple statements covering the 1990's are patently absurd.

    What you know about this era of Celtic basketball is apparently NOTHING!

    But by all means... keep saying it.

    That way you have nothing to defend.

    Pud

    [/QUOTE]


    Hahahaha

    +1000

    Nothing to say pretty much covers it.

    Unless Fierce can provide the EVIDENCE of GOOD trades Gavitt turned down in 1992 for McHale/Parish, he has lost this one.

    I provided the EVIDENCE of Red's failures in 1989. I said they hurt the 90's rebuild over ANYTHING Gavitt could have done after Bird retired and Lewis died, which is when Fierce said Gavitt set the rebuild back. Fierce is wrong if he still claims it was Gavitt's moves (or lack of them) more than Red's decisions in 1989.

    Can you admit what Red did over 5 months in 1989 hurt more Fiercy?

    HAHAHA of course he can't. He's WRONG but will never admit it. Like he was wrong thinking the team signed McDaniels AFTER Lewis died and was wrong thinking Gavitt signed Dominique when Red did. Ignorance.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: What really set the Celtics back in the 1990's

    In response to Fiercy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    rame

     

    It's not about Gavitt turning down good trades, it's about not doing anything to make the Celtics better at that time.

    Again, what did the Celtics do after Bird retired?

    We all know the Celtics were not going to win another championship without Bird, right?

     

    So what did Gavitt do?

    He signed Xavier McDaniel to replace Bird.

     

    Red Auerbach made a mistake by picking Michael Smith over Tim Hardaway or Shawn Kemp in the 1989 Draft.

    But that was his only mistake.

    I don't consider not trading McHale for Detlef Schrempf and Sam Perkins a mistake.

    Why?

    You really think the Celts would won another championship with Schrempf and Perkins?

    Of course not!

     

    The Celts were very solid in the frontcourt.

    It's the backcourt where the Celts were very weak.

    Dennis Johnson got old and John Bagley wasn't good enough.

     

    Also, Celts won 51 games or more in 1990, 1991, and 1992, before Bird retired.

    There was no need to break up the Big 3 in 1989 because Bird, Parish, and McHale were still playing at a high level.

    [/QUOTE]

    Wow!

    You just can't make this stuff up. Still unwilling to admit the obvious moment when the entire 90's rebuild was set back was the '89 deadline and '89 draft.

    You just don't get it.

    There was no need to break up the Big 3 in 1989 because Bird, Parish, and McHale were still playing at a high level.


    McHale had hardware in his foot Fiercy! EVERYONE who watched him (I know you weren't old enough) saw a completely different player. It was just like KG NEVER being the same after his 2009 injury.

    The 1991 and 1992 teams that I loved won 50+ games and had these averages from Kevin McHale: 62 games, 27.5 mins per game, 16.2ppg, 6.5rpg

    Schrempf those 2 years: Averages of 81 games, 32.3 mins per game, 16.7ppg, 6.5 rpg

    Perkins those 2 year: Averages of 71 games, 35.5mpg, 15ppg, 5.5 rpg

    Bird was played an idiotic exhausting 39.3 mins a game in 1990 that led to his back injury. He was still run out there for 38 and 37 mins a game in '91 and '92 despite having to miss 22 and 37 games those seasons. The guys Red got in '89 to help rest him were Pinckney and Michael Smith. THEY FAILED. McHale was too hurt to play more than 27 mins a night himself, he couldn't rest Bird.

    The failure was on Red and what happened over 5 months in 1989.

    Right before the 90's Red made moves that crippled the rebuild far more than what Gavitt could have done after 1992. FACT

    Unless you can tell me what great haul the basically worthless by then McHale and Parish would have brought back summer of '92 you can't win this one Fiercy. Sorry. 

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: What really set the Celtics back in the 1990's

    You gave me TWO moments Gavitt failed:

    1. After Bird retired - August of '92 when the draft/free agency period was over

    2. After Lewis died - August of '93 when the draft/free agency period was over

    I gave you TWO moments Red failed:

    1. The 1989 trade deadline with an offer on the table Red rejected

    2. The 1989 draft with a future all-star PG about to be selected before Red took a bust

    Red failed more in those 5 months BY FAR than Gavitt did in those 12. 

    It is BOTH his failure to trade McHale for Schrempf/Perkins AND his passing on Tim Hardaway (not Kemp, he wasn't on our radar) that were the failures.

    Parish and McHale had almost no trade value after Bird retired. Parish was 39 and McHale was damaged beyond repair entering a season most knew would be his last.

    Did the 29 year old Schrempf, 31 year old Perkins, 32 year old Ainge and 25 year old Tim Hardaway have more trade value than Parish, McHale, Pinckney and Kleine if the team had to be blown up when Larry retired???

    Umm... do I even need to explain that?

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from raider3524. Show raider3524's posts

    Re: What really set the Celtics back in the 1990's

    In response to Fiercy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Before Rick Pitino came along, what did the Celtic front office do from 1992 to 1996?

    Only Antoine Walker became an All-Star among those 1st round picks.

    The busts included Acie Earl and Eric Montross.

     

    Also, the Celts tried to make the playoffs even when they clearly had no chance of winning a championship by signing Xavier McDaniel and a 35-year old Dominique Wilkins.

     

    The Celtic front office of the early to mid-1990s was only concerned about the financial aspect of the game.

    They really didn't care about winning a championship.

    Making the playoffs was more important because it would mean extra income.

    [/QUOTE]

    we had m.l. carr..chris ford..both i think were horrible coach'sand you add rick pitino...i still think pitino is a good coach...but we gave him to much power to keep trading players...and bias and lewis were the main part that we took the hard fall...bias was to be the one to take over for bird...i don't think gavitt was to blame here.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: What really set the Celtics back in the 1990's

     

    Red Auerbach made a mistake by picking Michael Smith over Tim Hardaway or Shawn Kemp in the 1989 Draft.

    But that was his only mistake.

    I don't consider not trading McHale for Detlef Schrempf and Sam Perkins a mistake.

    Why?

    You really think the Celts would won another championship with Schrempf and Perkins?

    Of course not!

    There was no need to break up the Big 3 in 1989 because Bird, Parish, and McHale were still playing at a high level.

    - Fiercy

    Good LORD!

    First, it is two mistakes being reversed, not one. Yes I do believe that had he traded McHale for Schrempf and Perkins we had a shot at another title.

    Ainge and Tim Hardaway would have been on those teams. Why? Because Red made the Ainge for Pinckney-Kleine moves (two bigs) INSTEAD of trading McHale. Come draft day, after seeing how good Perkins and Schrempf were at the forward spots (instead of being underwhelmed by Pinckney and knowing McHale had screws in his foot) Red would have conceded that Hardaway be the choice over Schrempf clone Michael Smith.

    Bird was DESTROYED in 1990 at 39 mins a game.

    That was McHale's last good season at 33 mins, 20.9 points and 8 rebs before he fell apart. But it was barely better than the 33 minutes, 16.2 points and 8 rebounds Schrempf gave that year.

    Smith's (9 mins, 5ppg/1.5rpg), Pinckney's (14mpg, 4.7ppg/3rpg) and Kleine's (17mpg, 5.4ppg/4.4rpg) outputs combined were basically the same as Perkins 35.5mpg, 15 points and 7.5 rebounds. Perkins remember could play center. So the frontcourt strength you brag about was pretty much a wash had that trade been made.

    Meanwhile, Ainge scored 18ppg and dished out 6apg in 36 minutes in Sacramento in 1990. Yes they were a bad team, but still, he was a $0.50 traded for two quarters. Brian Shaw fled overseas to Italy to make more money. Red didn't solve that one correctly either. Yuck!

    Reggie Lewis was forced to play SG all of 1990 (b/c Ainge and Shaw were gone) after breaking out as a SF in 1989. He actually regressed slightly from 18.5ppg to 17ppg and played a minute less per game. Think the C's would have been better off giving Ainge those 32 minutes at SG and giving Lewis half his mins at SF? Bird could have had his mins cut from the insane 39 down to a reasonable 32 and Parish could have played 26 minutes instead of 30.

    Think Bird would have been a better player in the 1990 playoffs and the 1991 and 1992 seasons if he had some of those 39 mins back?

    Hardaway went for 14.7ppg, 8.7apg and 2.2spg in 33 mins as a rookie then was an all-star 22/10 guy the next 3 seaoson in a row. DJ was run out there an idiotic 27 mins a game his final season but still dished out 6.5 dimes. Hardaway could have extended his career by a year.

    So yes Fiercy, I think the 1990 or 1991 Celtics could have won a title with this rotation:

    C - Parish (28 mins) Perkins (20 mins)

    PF - Bird (32 mins), Perkins (16 mins)

    SF - Schrempf (34 mins) Lewis (14 mins)

    SG - Ainge (28 mins) Lewis (20 mins)

    PG - Hardaway (32 mins) DJ (16 mins)

    DJ could still have retired after 1990 and Shaw (who returned and put up 13.7/7.6 in 35 minutes) could have taken over backup PG and been MUCH better. Or Red could have just PAID SHAW before the 1989-90 season and had an incredible backcourt. Or traded Shaw for a backup center who was at least as good or hopefully better than Joe Kliene.

    The run and gun teams that Chris Ford tried to implement to compete with the Bulls in the early 90's would have been truly amazing with Schrempf, Perkins, Ainge, Shaw, Tim Hardaway and a more rested and healthy Larry Bird instead of running bird into the ground and playing guys like Pinckney, Smith, Bagley, DJ, McHale and Kleine instead.

    Get it Fierce?

    Then come 1992 maybe Bird....WOULDN'T HAVE RETIRED!

    He'd have probably played 1-2 more years if he wasn't absolutely annhiliated at 38/39 mins a game in '90 and '91.

    And when he finally did retire, Hardaway, Perkins and Schrempf would be sitting there representing 4-5 first round picks from '94-'97. McHale and Parish in 1992 as a PAIR would have been lucky to land a first rounf pick in the last half of the 1993 draft.

    Do you get it now Fiercy?

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from raider3524. Show raider3524's posts

    Re: What really set the Celtics back in the 1990's

    In response to Fiercy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to raider3524's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    we had m.l. carr..chris ford..both i think were horrible coach'sand you add rick pitino...i still think pitino is a good coach...but we gave him to much power to keep trading players...and bias and lewis were the main part that we took the hard fall...bias was to be the one to take over for bird...i don't think gavitt was to blame here.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah, but who hired the coaches?

     

    Who drafted the players?

    And who gave the green light to sign Xavier McDaniel and a 35-year old Dominique Wilkins?

     

    Also, I'm not talking about the Rick Pitino era, I'm only referring to 1992-1996.

    [/QUOTE]

    at the time i liked the mcdaniel and wilkins signing...and who knew montross would be a bust? not me and we needed a center...and a.walker was alright.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: What really set the Celtics back in the 1990's

    In response to Fiercy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    rame

     

    Your opinion has one problem.

    The Celts won a championship in 2008 when KG and Ray were both 32 years old.

     

    McHale was only 32 years old in 1989 and he was averaging 22.5 ppg.

     

    No matter how you spin it, Red had every right NOT to trade McHale.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Not at all

    How about this if you want to keep referencing the current team

    KG was NEVER the same player after the 2009 injury. He tried to come back from it right before the playoffs and shut it down. He DRAGGED that leg. Post D was still ok, jumper was there, but above the rim athletic game was gone.  We all saw KG at age 33 in the 2010 finals.

    McHale? He PLAYED ON THE FOOT! He had screws in it. He was DONE as a dominant player by the deadline of '89. He became a crafty post player who could spin and upfake his way to 22 points but his defense was nothing like it was.

    Had a team come calling with a 26 year old combo forward who averaged 13/6 like Schrempf (Luol Deng, 26 in '10 comes to mind) and a 28 year old 15/8 PF-C with high bball IQ and range like Perkins (David West, 29 in '10 comes to mind) would Ainge have traded KG after the 2010 NBA finals?

    Not trading McHale in 1989 for Perkins/Schrempf would have been like Ainge not trading KG in 2010 for Luol Deng and David West.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from raider3524. Show raider3524's posts

    Re: What really set the Celtics back in the 1990's

    In response to Mployee8's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Fiercy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Mployee8's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Like I said ... his final years and the years you just sited, read any story after a game and McHale will tell you he and Birdie spend all their time in the trainers room or whirlpool trying to overcome the game they just finished ... they were both walking wounded for years!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Agree that they were walking wounded for years.

     

    But so was Pierce and KG after 2010 and the Celts still made it to the ECF in 2012.

     

    We can argue that Red should've broken up the Big 3 in 1989.

    But you can't argue the fact that the Celtic front office in the 1990s did NOTHING to turn the Celtics into contenders again.

    [/QUOTE]


    Red had no intention of breaking up the Big Three ... the was part of the Celtics mystique and the Celtic Family thing ... they took care of guys that were champions. None of them would be traded under Red ... Period!!!

    It seems to me also that under Gavitt (CEO) and Jan Volk (GM), the ownership was transferred from Dan Gaston to his son Paul (1993) who began prepping the team to be sold if my memory is correct. They were told not to sign any big contracts and to get the team salary down so the new owners could do their own thing. With "Thanks Dad" running the show and as much sucked out of the organization as possible by then (Media outfits acquired, stock sold etc) there was not big backer to fuel any rebuild. Gavitt knew the Big East and USA Basketball and had some insight to the new crop of kids coming up but depended on Volk for day to day ops. It took Paul about 10 years before they finally found the current ownership to take over ...

    [/QUOTE]

    that's pretty darn good mployee8.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: What really set the Celtics back in the 1990's

    In response to Fiercy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Mployee8's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Like I said ... his final years and the years you just sited, read any story after a game and McHale will tell you he and Birdie spend all their time in the trainers room or whirlpool trying to overcome the game they just finished ... they were both walking wounded for years!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Agree that they were walking wounded for years.

     

    But so was Pierce and KG after 2010 and the Celts still made it to the ECF in 2012.

     

    We can argue that Red should've broken up the Big 3 in 1989.

    But you can't argue the fact that the Celtic front office in the 1990s did NOTHING to turn the Celtics into contenders again.

    [/QUOTE]

    What can't be argued is that Gavitt's 'doing nothing' set the franchise back more than what we know Red blew BADLY in 1989 did.

    Unless you can show me how Gavitt turned down THREE first round picks in '93, '95 and '97 for McHale and Parish, the crazy good deal the crazy Russian gave Ainge last summer, than you really can't possible defend 1989 Red vs. 1992/93 Dave Gavitt.

    There is no comparison to be made. Gavitt was in a serious hard place by the time Bird retired as he hoped he could lure him back for 1 more year when he returned from the Olympics, the draft/free agency was already over and by that summer McHale was worthless and Parish 39 years old.

    He had a 50 win team with Lewis just as bright a young star as Rondo and guys like Fox, Sherm and Dee Brown just as exciting young players as Green and Bradley. He did EXACTLY what Ainge did in 2012 when he brought in McDaniels (Jason Terry).

    Don't you get this? 

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share