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

    In response to Mployee8's comment:
    [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]

    Yup!

    Great stuff!

    It was Red's 1960's philosophy that doomed the team at the start of the 1990's and the trade deadline of 1989 was what proved it. What Gavitt was unable to do with a worthless McHale and 39 year old Parish by 1992 is NOTHING compared to how badly Red set the team back in 1989.

    Danny knew it. He told Red himself.

    That is why healthy 30 year old Danny Ainge who was not quite retired # material found himself a 50 cent piece traded for two quarters instead of McHale, a $1.00 that everyone in the Celtics organization knew was going to be worth $0.50 in 1-2 years and $0.25 in 3, wasn't traded for two 50 cent pieces everyone in the NBA knew would be worth $0.75 in the next 1-2 years and probably be worth that amount for the 5-6 seasons after as well, long after McHale had fallen to pieces and retired.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. 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]

     

     

    McHale was a cripple those final years ... you gotta be kidding me. At that point Red just wanted the three to retire as Celtics. There was no value in Chief and with McHale not likely to pass any physical exams in a trade Red opted to try and save things by moving Danny.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    McHale only started becoming a cripple in 1991-92.

     

    McHale averaged 22.5 ppg in 89, 20.9 ppg in 90, and 18.4 ppg in 1991.

     

    Parish was averaging a double-double in 1989, 90, and 91.

     

    The frontcourt was not the problem.

    It was the backcourt that was weak.

     

    Celts won 51 or more games from 1990-1992.

    The Celts were still contenders at that time.

    So why break up the Big 3?

    [/QUOTE]

    Read what other people write before posting the same thing again. I showed you WHY and it is FACT so if you don't listen or believe it and still said Red was right to old onto a 32 year old McHale b/c he 'scored 20 a game still' then you are WRONG.

    McHale in 1989 was like KG in 2010. Both had a majot injury, both were damaged goods, NEVER to be the same player again. 

    Can you remember 1998-2008 KG Fiercy? Sure you can.

    Can you remember 2009-2013 KG? Obviously. Were they the same? HECK NO!

    Can you remember 1982-1986 McHale Fiercy? Of course you can't.

    Can you remember 1988-1991 McHale? Probably not.'

    If you could, you would know that just b/c McHale still got 18-22ppg on his variety of clever post moves and stood in the paint with his 7'4" wingspan grabbing 8 boards.... he was DONE. He was nothing like he was before the screws were put in his foot. A player who could guard Dr. J, Drexler and Dominique beyond the arc, letting the slower less athletic Bird guard the PF's and then score 45-50 anytime he wanted to (except he deferred to Bird).

    Do you get this?

    I'll say it again. Turning down Perkins and Schempf, 26 and 28 years old, for McHale in 1989 would have been like Ainge turning down Luol Deng and David West, 26 and 29, for KG after Garnett's pitiful 2010 finals when he was just 1 year older than McHale at the '89 deadline.

     
  4. 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 Mployee8's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Please ... Bird had back surgery a few years after having bone spurs removed from his feet and missing practically the entire season. McHale has one leg shorter than the other today and you want to compare PP & KG to those two!!! PP & KG only won one championship!!! They can't hold Bird & McHales jock straps between the two of them ... No discussion ... make all the excuses you want but as much as I appreciate the play of KG & PP they were no Bird/McHale ... PERIOD --- END of STORY!!!!

    [/QUOTE]

    Agreed.

    I unfortunately did not get to see McHale live in his prime.

    My basketball memories start with the '88 Bird-Nique shootout. Meaning I can remember a month of Bird still being at his best before being robbed of him for the first NBA season I can remember, 1988-1989. He was still pretty dang good in 1990 but unfortunately was abused for 39.3 minutes per game and the back surgery came after that inexcusable travesty.

    Fiercy of course is not old enough to remember the Big 3 playing live at all.

     

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

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

    My favorite teams as a kid were the '91 and '92 ones of course b/c the first two I remember '89 and '90 were awful without Bird and with Jimmy Rogers ruining everything and playing Bird into the ground.

    The 1991-92 teams were very good teams that were Bird's health, an all-star PG and 3 solid, in their prime starter quality vets away from being great. They needed a big who was better than Pinckney/Kleine, a guard who was more experienced and dependable (not in Italy for instance) than Shaw/Gamble/Brown and another big was was healthier than McHale.

    That is why Red's decisions in 1989 killed the 90's rebuild more than anything.

    He robbed us of not only 3-4 EPIC playoff battles and shots at a championship, but of 3-4 trade chips easily worth 4-5 1st rouns picks in the mid-90's. Which Ainge was lucky enough to get from the crazy Russian. Gavitt would have been lucky to get ONE late 1993 1st rd pick for Parish and McHale in 1992 IF (as you said) they passed physicals (McHale?Hahahaha).

    I know it is ungrateful to attack a legend responsible for 16 titles. A revered and amazing competitor and ultimate champion.

    But I can't remember the first 16 titles.

    I remember how awful it was as a 10-11 year old kid to watch the 1991 and 1992 Celtics fall in the 2nd round of the playoffs and have my dad point out guys like Schrempf (on the Pacers team we clawed our way past in '91) and Perkins (in the finals for LA that year), Hardaway (and electrifying all-star PG and part of run TMC) and Ainge (back to back finals with Portland and Phoenix dropping 17 and 20 point games in them, a brash fighter till the end). He'd say "we could have all four of those guys but the immortal Red Auerbach went with Michael Smith, Ed Pinckney, Joe Kleine and holding onto Kevin McHale 3 years too long'

    So forgive me Fiercy... but you are WRONG.

    It was Red in 1989 and not Gavitt in 1992 and 1993 who REALLY destroyed the 1990's rebuild plan. END OF STORY.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. 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 Mployee8's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Yes, Red didn't have the savy that he once commanded and I will always wonder if he weren't so personally connected to the Big Three if he would have done as you speculate could have been done or stuck to his lifetime Celtics routine for the Big Three.

    Sadly on Birds downfall and ulitimate retirement, what I remember most that irked me to no end, was listening to reports coming from the players of the Dram Team complaining about another star baller being left off the team in favor of an injured player with a bad back. Maybe I'm mistaken but it was plain to me that some members didn't want to "carry" Bird on the team as the retiring ex-star of the NBA (though the entire world was dying to see him and Magic on the same team) at the expense of one of their healthier all-star peers that had been cut.

    [/QUOTE]

    Well if that is true and Red had traded McHale for Perkins and Schrempf, fired Jimmy Rogers and Chris Ford was told Bird had to be kept rested, then it would have been a non-issue in 1992:-)

    Bird and Magic, even with the bad back and HIV, were what the world wanted. Kobe put them both on his Mt. Rushmore with Russ and MJ tonight. So too bad, they were the best players of the 1980's.

    I'd always heard MJ dictated some roster spots on that team and he was all for Bird. Dominique was better than Chris Mullin, he and MJ didn't get alone after all those fiesty dunk competitions, so he was out. 

    Pippen it is widely known was a last minute addition over Isaiah Thomas. The team only had two PG's and one was Magic off the abrupt retirement. So Pippen, only just becoming an all-star and younger than all the other pro's on that team or Isiah, a champion in 1989 and 1990? Shady to say the least.

    Christian Laettner was a joke of course, but I guess they should have had one college guy. Karl Malone, who ignorantly said stuff about Magic's HIV and 'keeping his distance' and Ewing, whose Knicks the C's never respected, were probably the ones that said stuff about Bird and his back.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. 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]

    You don't need short stories to explain what happened.

     

    Red Auerbach will be remembered for trading Joe Barry Carroll and Rickey Brown for Kevin McHale and Robert Parish in the 1980.

     

    Danny Ainge will be remembered for bringing KG and Ray Allen to Boston in 2007.

     

    You guys remember anything Dave Gavitt did during his time with the Celtics?

     

    Like I said, no short stories needed to explain what happened in the 1990s.

    [/QUOTE]


    Like I said, Red Auerbach's decisions in 1989 hurt the team far more than ANYTHING Dave Gavitt did or did not do in 1992 and 1993.

    Anyone who says Gavitt's 'do nothing' offseasons of 1992 and 1993 hurt the Celtics rebuilding effort more than Red not trading McHale in '89, trading Ainge instead and drafing Michael Smith over Tim Hardaway is wrong.

    If Fiercy believes Gavitt is more to blame than Red for why the 90's rebuild took so long... he is WRONG. End of Story.

     
  10. 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]

    You don't need short stories to explain what happened.

     

    Red Auerbach will be remembered for trading Joe Barry Carroll and Rickey Brown for Kevin McHale and Robert Parish in the 1980.

     

    Danny Ainge will be remembered for bringing KG and Ray Allen to Boston in 2007.

     

    You guys remember anything Dave Gavitt did during his time with the Celtics?

     

    Like I said, no short stories needed to explain what happened in the 1990s.

    [/QUOTE]
    I find the short stories to be utterly fascinating reading so keep it up guys.

    Very educational and it brings back lots of faded memories.

    If fungus isn't comfortable weaving together the many diverse threads of knowledge/intrigue/subplots/guesswork about C's ownership behind the scenes goings-on and he prefers to stick to his simplistic  "They did NOTHING... Bingo.... HAHAHA!" quips,  that would not surprise me at all.

    Great story-telling thread that uplifts us all.

    Pud

     

     

     
  11. 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]

    I find the short stories to be utterly fascinating reading so keep it up guys.

    Very educational and it brings back lots of faded memories.

    If fungus isn't comfortable weaving together the many diverse threads of knowledge/intrigue/subplots/guesswork about C's ownership behind the scenes goings-on and he prefers to stick to his simplistic  "They did NOTHING... Bingo.... HAHAHA!" quips,  that would not surprise me at all.

    Great story-telling thread that uplifts us all.

    Pud

    [/QUOTE]

    Will do!

    Fungus - "They did NOTHING... Bingo.... HAHAHA!"

    Ram - 'Short stories' that prove Fiercy WRONG

    If Fierce thinks Dave Gavitt set the Celtics rebuild back more in the 1990's than Red Auerbach.... HE IS WRONG

    That story is short enough

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. 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:

    In response to rameakap's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Like I said, Red Auerbach's decisions in 1989 hurt the team far more than ANYTHING Dave Gavitt did or did not do in 1992 and 1993.

    Anyone who says Gavitt's 'do nothing' offseasons of 1992 and 1993 hurt the Celtics rebuilding effort more than Red not trading McHale in '89, trading Ainge instead and drafing Michael Smith over Tim Hardaway is wrong.

    If Fiercy believes Gavitt is more to blame than Red for why the 90's rebuild took so long... he is WRONG. End of Story.

     

     



    I'm asking you, what did Dave Gavitt do to improve the Celtics in the 1990s?

     

    It's simple, tell everybody here what Dave Gavitt did, who he signed as free-agents, who were his draft picks, and who were the players he traded for.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Fungus is PO'd!

    He's going to hold his breath until he gets an answer!!!

    Pud

     

     

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. 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]

    In response to Mployee8's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     

    He's looking to re-establish his "BRAND" before other readers catch on. He's been getting pummeled the last few weeks. Last thing he need's is Danny to become a buyer rather than seller and you can check him into the institution.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That's because you're so gullible.

     

    Like I said, don't believe everything you read.

     

    You and rame spend hours and hours talking about Fiercy.

    Even at 3am you guys are still talking about Fiercy.

     

    So who got pummeled for not being able to get enough sleep?

    HAHAHA

    [/QUOTE]

    Still holding your breath, fungus????

    Looks like it.

    Pud

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from chris33. Show chris33's posts

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

    Three days to the trade deadline, and it doesn't look like much is happening.

    It is not hard to understand why no one wants Bass or Bradley or Rondo's bloated contract.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

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

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

    In response to TheBigTicket05's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Fiercy's comment:

     

    Could anyone have prevented Bias and Lewis from dying?

     

    But Celtics front office could have done something about NOT picking Acie Earl and Eric Montross.

    Celtic front office could've opted not to sign Xavier McDaniel and a 35-year old Dominique Wilkins.

     

    No one can prevent people from dying, but you can do something about drafting and signing free-agents.

     



    couldve been avoided if they only treated him the same way as they did to uncle jeff

     

    [/QUOTE]

    take it easy!

     
  22. 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]

     

    In response to rameakap's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Like I said, Red Auerbach's decisions in 1989 hurt the team far more than ANYTHING Dave Gavitt did or did not do in 1992 and 1993.

    Anyone who says Gavitt's 'do nothing' offseasons of 1992 and 1993 hurt the Celtics rebuilding effort more than Red not trading McHale in '89, trading Ainge instead and drafing Michael Smith over Tim Hardaway is wrong.

    If Fiercy believes Gavitt is more to blame than Red for why the 90's rebuild took so long... he is WRONG. End of Story.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

     



    I'm asking you, what did Dave Gavitt do to improve the Celtics in the 1990s?

     

    It's simple, tell everybody here what Dave Gavitt did, who he signed as free-agents, who were his draft picks, and who were the players he traded for.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Fungus is PO'd!

    He's going to hold his breath until he gets an answer!!!

    Pud

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Hahahahahaha.... EXACTLY!

    I don't have to answer his question. I proved him wrong already. Answering HIS questions when he has been humiliated and shown 100% why he is WRONG is not my job.

    Fiercy thread - What set the Celtics back in the 1990's

    Ram thread - What REALLY set them back in the 1990's

    Fiercy only had to concede that even though Gavitt (with his hands tied after Red's mess) didnn't  to blow it up and rebuild in 1992/93, Red was bigger culprit and TRULY was the cause of the 1990's rebuild being mangled so badly.

    Could he do it?

    Nope!

    He admitted Red should have picked Tim Hardaway though.... that ONE MOVE (passing on Hardaway for Michael Smith) set the team back more than ANYTHING Gavitt could have done or did not do.

    So right there Fiercy's own words prove him wrong

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

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

    Fierce admitted that Red made a major mistake in 1989 by passing on Hardaway, who everyone else wanted, in favor of Michael Smith.

    So he has acknowledged one of Red's FOUR mistakes in 1989

    If he wants I can prove... IN DEPTH... what that one error being reversed would have done to the fortunes of the 1990's Celtics and why the 1989 draft set the next decade back more than ANYTHING Gavitt did.

    Is that what you would like Fiercy? Another short story showing you are wrong?

     

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

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

    Fiercy would have kept McHale over Schrempf/Perkins (foolishness) and I guess was ok with the outcome of that none deal being Ainge for Kleine Pinckney. I proved him wrong about this and showed why that wa such an error even if at the time it was being discussed McHale was a 32 year old 23ppg player.

    But Fiercy admits Red should have taken Tim Hardaway over Michael Smith, and in that one admission his 'Gavitt in 1992 was the problem' theory goes right out the window and it is 100% clear that Red in 1989 was the real undoing of the 1990's. 

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share