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 Fiercy's comment:

    rame

     

    Why keep dodging the question?

    What did Dave Gavitt do to make the Celts a better team in the 1990s?

     

    Dave Gavitt was hired in 1990, to take over for Auerbach, and fired in 1994.

     

    The Red Auerbach era was over in 1990 when Dave Gavitt took over.

    So what did Gavitt do to make the Celts a better team from 1990 to 1994?

     

    Also, if Dave Gavitt was not a failure, why did the Celts fire him in 1994?

    Do you really struggle THIS badly to understand ANYTHING?

    First, you thought Gavitt signed Dominique Wilkins in 1994 before I had to correct you that you were WRONG and Red did that.

    Second, you said the team should have been tanking instead of trying to make the playoffs in 1994 and I showed you that Gavitt WANTED to tank... and was demoted and his contract not renewed b/c of it.

    He was 'fired' because he wanted to do what you accused him of not doing. Getting real bad anD rebuilding.

    Hahahahaha.... tears.... you can't get anyhing straight.

     
  2. 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:

    rame

    Why keep dodging the question?

    What did Dave Gavitt do to make the Celts a better team in the 1990s?

    Dave Gavitt was hired in 1990, to take over for Auerbach, and fired in 1994.

    The Red Auerbach era was over in 1990 when Dave Gavitt took over.

    So what did Gavitt do to make the Celts a better team from 1990 to 1994?

    Also, if Dave Gavitt was not a failure, why did the Celts fire him in 1994?



    I thought they were supposed to blow it up and get WORSE??'

    Hahahahahaha

    Now you are asking what Gavitt did to make them BETTER??

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

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

    I am not 'dodging' your question foolish one. You are spinning and moving the argument away from where you already lost. Like you always do. Pathetic.

    You can't prove to me how Dave Gavitt's leadership of the Celtics hurt the franchise's need to rebuilt in the 90's more than even just that ONE major blunder by Red in 1989 of picking Smith over Hardaway.

    You idiotically think that b/c McHale still averged 23 points he should have been held onto over being traded for Schrempf/Perkins and that of course led to Ainge being dealt instead and the death of the dynasty.

    You lose!

    Get it?

    You provide nothing but empty questions. You don't back yourself up with proof. You were ROCKED on this subject and have come off as a clueless fool.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. 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:

    In response to rameakap's comment:

     

     

    I thought they were supposed to blow it up and get WORSE??'

    Hahahahahaha

    Now you are asking what Gavitt did to make them BETTER??

     



    Now you're spinning the argument.

     

    Ainge blew up the Celtics last summer and made trades that were downgrades this season.

    But Ainge is doing a good job because he's rebuilding the Celtics.

     

    Of course Dave Gavitt got fired, he did NOTHING!

    You're stuck because you can't present anything significant that Gavitt did during his time.

     

    It's simple, the Celtics were a middle of the pack team when Gavitt was calling the shots.

    In other words, the Celts didn't have any direction.

    That's why he was fired.




    Classic Fiercy spin as he gets educated and shown his errors over and over.

    Gavitt's contract was not renewed for wanting to tank and Red signed Dominique 2 months after his demotion from head decision maker. Less than 3 years later Pitino was hired b/c just like in 1989 Red proved that when Len Bias died so did his ability to run the Boston Celtics. Red was never the same and also turned 70 years old in 1987. He was 77 when he signed 'Nique.

    Remember when you said Gavitt signed Dominique? HA! Way to have a clue about the decade you started a thread about.

     

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

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

    The question is not about what Gavitt failed to do. It is about what set the Celtics back the most in the 1990's. Get it Fiercy? This is what Pud is mocking you for. You changed the question. Start a thread that says 'Dave Gavitt failed to sell off Parish and McHale for whatever he could get in 1992' and I will agree with you.

    I started a thread about Red's moves in 1989 being what set back the 1990's rebuild the most. If you still ignorantly think it was Gavitt in 1992 that messed up more.... YOU LOSE!

    So you've confirmed an account of Gavitt turning down a trade of a teams '93, '95 and '97 1st round picks for McHale and Parish in 1992..... oh... nobody offered a can of beans for a walking corpse and a 39 year old by the time Bird retired?

    Welp... guess that makes you wrong and me right when I say Red's 1989 decisions set the team back further than Gavitt's '92/'93 none moves.

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

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

    Had you been in charge in 1989 Fiercy you would have taken Hardaway over Michael Smith. You said this.

    Do you have ANY idea how much that one move would have changed EVERYTHING about the 1990's? It would have been monumental. We may have even won the 1990 or 1991 NBA titles.

    You're blaming Gavitt for not selling Parish and McHale for a late 1993 1st round pick or a couple of 2nd's and signing McDaniels instead?

    WOW!

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

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

    Fiercy... had you been in charge in 1994 you'd have told the team to TANK and not sign Dominique and Pervis Ellison and Dana Barros right??

    Well.... YOU'D HAVE BEEN FIRED TOO!

    Because that is what Gavitt said to Red and the Gaston family and he was demoted and then let go.

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

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

    If an outsider asked you in 2006 Fiercy who was to blame for the Celtics fall from 2002 Eastern Conference Finals team to '06 lottery team.... what would you say?

    Would you say "Oh this new GM Danny Ainge doesn't know what he's doing. He traded Antoine Walker away for a bad contract and drafted a couple of high school big men and scrappy defensive guards to put beside Paul Pierce."

    Or would you say "Our new GM has his hands tied but I bet he will be making moves in the next year or two. It was Chris Wallace the old GM who messed things up. He traded Joe Johnson for two veteran role players who are gone now, he drafted Joseph Forte over Tony Parker when many in the front office wanted Tony bad. That same draft he could have rolled the pick used on bust Kederick Brown into 2002 where it would have been Nene or Amare Stoudamire. He traded Kenny Anderson, a capable and fairly cheap veteran, for the bloated contract of an alcholic the team released and needed t use the amnesty clause on. Finally, going back to Joe Johnson, Wallace threw our own 1st round pick into that trade for good measure, giving up on Tayshaun Prince, Carlos Boozer, Nenad Krstic and John Salmons who were 4 of the next 12 picks."

    I'm guessing you wouldn't blame Ainge right?

    That is why I don't blame Dave Gavitt for why it was so hard to rebuild in the 1990's. It starts and ends with Red's mistakes in 1989.

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

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

    If the fungus were a jelly donut, he would look like this about now.....

    Hemorrhaging...

    Pud

     

     

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. 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 mellymel2's comment:

    In response to rameakap's comment:

    If an outsider asked you in 2006 Fiercy who was to blame for the Celtics fall from 2002 Eastern Conference Finals team to '06 lottery team.... what would you say?

    Would you say "Oh this new GM Danny Ainge doesn't know what he's doing. He traded Antoine Walker away for a bad contract and drafted a couple a couple high school big men to put beside Paul Pierce."

    Or would you say "Our new GM has his hands tied but I bet he will be making moves in the next year or two. It was Chris Wallace the old GM who messed things up. He traded Joe Johnson for two veteran role players who are gone now, he drafted Joseph Forte over Tony Parker when many in the front office wanted Tony bad. That same draft he could have rolled the pick used on bust Kederick Brown into 2002 where it would have been Nene or Amare Stoudamire. He traded Kenny Anderson, a capable and fairly cheap veteran, for the bloated contract of an alcholic the team released and needed t use the amnesty clause on. Finally, going back to Joe Johnson, Wallace threw our own 1st round pick into that trade for good measure, giving up on Tayshaun Prince, Carlos Boozer, Nenad Krstic and John Salmons who were 4 of the next 12 picks."

    I'm guessing you wouldn't blame Ainge right?

    That is why I don't blame Dave Gavitt for why it was so hard to rebuild in the 1990's. It starts and ends with Red's mistakes in 1989.



    Absolutely correct, especially that atrocious selection of Forte, as a favor to his old backup Center Thompson, the coach at  Georgetown, instead of Parker...oh yeah, that worked out well!




    Forte was a Tar Heel and actually (poor guy can't catch a break) RED was a major influence on them drafting him. He really liked the kid for some reason (but was 84 years old).

    Thanks for the compliment.

    Gavitt being demoted and fired in1994 b/c he took Red's East Finals team in '88, watched it be turned it into a 1st round/lotto team, and then suggested tanking (only to see them sign Dominique) would have been like Ainge being fired in 2006 or 2007 before his plan came to fruition b/c Wyc was desperate for a 'name' player and used all their cap space on Allen Iverson.

     
  15. 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:

    rame

     

    Danny Ainge broke up a team that went to the east finals in 2002 because Ainge had a vision.

    And his vision didn't include Toine, Battie, and Eric Williams.

     

    This season is Ainge's 11th year as boss of the Celtic front office.

    Ainge didn't get fired because DID SOMETHING!

    How many GMs out there got the job done in 5 years?

     

    Ainge took over in 2003 and the Celts were already raising a banner in 2008.

     

    Dave Gavitt got fired.

    That's a fact.

    He wouldn't have gotten fired if he did something right, right?

     

    Why else would a CEO get fired?




    I have already explained this to you. He was fired b/c his vision of getting VERY bad (right as the new Garden was being unveiled and the Gaston's were considering selling) did not mesh with the vision ownership and proud old Red Auerbach had in 1994.

    Two years after Gavitt the C's finally warmed up to the Gavitt plan and tanked for Duncan.

    Who knows, if they tried it earlier maybe they get KG in 1995?

    I don't need to waste anymore time explaining the facts of those times to you. It is sad that you don't know enough about the history of the Celtics and need this told to you.

    My only question over and over since I proved the point of this thread topic is do you think Dave Gavitt was more responsible for setting the team back in the 1990's than Red Auerbach?

    If you still think he was, you have some screws loose b/c as I just absolutely proved that he wasn't.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

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

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

    Hahahahahahahahahahahaha

    Tears

    I forgot I started this thread titled 'Dave Gavitt did lots of helpful things as Celtics CEO'

    Thanks for reminding me what the thread topic is Fiercy.

    Glad you came along to inform me that Gavitt didn't do a whole lot to either help or hurt the Celtics. I mean he hit home runs on a couple of low draft picks and then was otherwise handcuffed by the team Red put together being capped out and filled with old icon players with no trade value and his one young all-star dying.

    Get it yet?

     

     

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

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

    So Fiercy did I title this thread 'Dave Gavitt's great peformance as CEO'? Because if I did by all means fire away with your 'Gavitt did nothing' responses.

    Wait! Hold on a minute.... someone is whispering in my ear... OHHHHHH.... sorry Fiercy.

    They're telling me this thread is about Red Auerbach's decisions in 1989 being the ones that set the Celtics franchise back in the 1990's more than anything else anyone else in this franchise did.

    Care to disagree?

    Care to argue how what Gavitt did in 1992 hurt the team more than what Red did in 1989?

    Because that is what this thread is about.

    If you disagree with me you are welcome to explain why. But the reason you have changed the topic is b/c you know you can't and have already lost.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from PHX85014. Show PHX85014's posts

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

    Let's not forget Pitino getting rid of RICK FOX and DEVID WESLEY , even before drafting Chauncey Billups and Ron Mercer and then trading both of them too soon

    Plus trading for Vitaly Potepenko....that was the Shawn Marion pick

    Have a nice evening

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. 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:

    Yes, we all know Pitino did a bad job, a very bad job when he was calling the shots.

    But at least Pitino got one thing right.

    He drafted Paul Pierce.

     

    All those Celtic fans who endured the 1990s know Dave Gavitt and the Celtic front office did NOTHING!




    Bingo!!!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Pud

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

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

    Well we can add another thing Fierce is wrong at to his LONG list:

    Gavitt didn't have success in drafting


    Dee Brown and Rick Fox were BIG TIME steals in the draft, being picked in the 20's and both be top 10 players in the draft. Gavitt hot two home runs and drafted one bust (Earl) in his 3 years drafting.

    Same as Ainge hitting on Avery and Sully around picks 19-22 and busting on Jujuan Johnson and Fab Melo.

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

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

    But the fact remains that Fiercy the coward has run and hid from the topic of this thread.

    This thread is about Red Auerbach's decisions in 1989 being the ones that set the Celtics franchise back in the 1990's more than anything else anyone else in this franchise did.

    Care to disagree Fiercy?

    Care to argue YOUR OPINION that what Gavitt did in 1992 hurt the team more than what Red did in 1989?

    Because that is what this thread is about. I do not deny that Gavitt failed to blow up decent 1991 and 1992 playoff teams... but he hardly set the 1990's back very far. Red was the one blew it BIG TIME.

    If you disagree with me you are welcome to explain why. But the reason you have changed the topic is b/c you know you can't and have already lost.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share