What set us back in the 1990s

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

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    The deaths of Len Bias and All Star Reggie Lewis is what set us back, we would have won another ring in 87' with Bias and he would have carried us into the 90's.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    In response to Fiercy's comment:

    In response to wozzy's comment:

     

    The deaths of Len Bias and All Star Reggie Lewis is what set us back, we would have won another ring in 87' with Bias and he would have carried us into the 90's.

     



    Yes, the death of Bias set us back.

     

    But what I'm talking about is what the late Dave Gavitt did in the early 1990s.

    Bias and Lewis already died, the Celts then did nothing and chose to keep making the playoffs with Xavier McDaniel and Dominique Wilkins.



    Wrong again Fiercy!

    And you are are wrong THREE TIMES... ugh, this is getting to be a habit for you of late huh?

    1. Xavier McDaniels was on the roster the ENTIRE YEAR of 1992-1993 when Lewis was alive and well until collapsing in the playoffs. It is comments like this that make me believe Fierce was not old enough to be watching the games.

    2. The Celtics were solidly in the lotto in 1994, no real playoff chances, and had McDaniels on the team the entire year.

    3. Dave Gavitt had his role with the team cut back from CEO to just a member of the Board of Director's in May of 1994. In July of 1994 it was President Red Auerbach who pushed for and announced the signing of Dominique Wilkins.

     

     

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

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    Let me educate you Fierce as the history book you are reading obviously is not doing a good enough job.

    Wozzy is right, the death of Bias set the team back the most. But championship teams are not supposed to have the #2 pick the next year anyhow. The Lakers were gifted that situation in 1982 with Worthy. Without Worthy the late 80's Lakers led by Magic and and old Kareem are like the '06-'07 Shaq-Wade Heat.

    The Celtics were given that same gift. Would have at least won the 1987 finals with Bias (even if McHale still broke his foot) and had he kept McHale from breaking that foot via minutes reduction and the butterfly effect then the history of the NBA would be different. I doubt Detroit wins ANY championships.

    What Len Bias's death did to RED AUERBACH was what had the lasting effect into the 1990's.

    Not Len's death in general and his absence on the court. Yes it happened, yes it hurt, move on. Two or three years after his passing Red began the decision making breakdowns that killed the 1990's rebuild. It had way more to do with Red's decisions than what Gavitt did and the inability to trade McHale and Parish after Bird retired and Lewis died.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    In response to Fiercy's comment:

     

    Ainge could have opted to keep KG and Pierce for 1 more year.

    But he didn't.

    In the 1990s, Celtics management just let McHale retire and Parish left for free-agency with the Celts getting nothing in return.

    Ainge would have repeated the mistake of the 1990s if he didn't trade KG and Pierce.

    That's why I keep saying that keeping Hump and Bass is not wise.

    We have to be patient and let Ainge rebuild the right way.

    Keeping Hump or Bass or both will set us back because the Celts will win more games than they should.

     



    Pay attention Fiercy. You are talking about 1992 and 1993, NOT mistakes made in 1989. So you are WRONG. Ainge got SUPER lucky and was ready to repeat the errors of the early 90's b/c circumstances and no good offers for his old stars were forcing him to.

     

    1. Ainge's original forecast was of a 3 year window 2008-2010. When the KG/Perk/Ray injuries cost us #18 that went down to the last few minutes of a game 7 it was clear a 4th year could be added to the window.

    2. After the 2011 disaster the team should have rebuilt but Ainge maintained that the offers he got for Pierce and KG were nothing good enough to pull the trigger on a trade. The '12 East Finals run that probably lands us a title if Avery, Ray and Green were healthy proved the window was more of a 5 year one and Ainge was right to not make trades worse than the Nets offer in the summer of 2011.

    3. The Nets offer was a Godfather one and too good to turn down when the players had FINALLY proven to be past their primes. Such an offer of three future picks, the chance to swap a 4th one year and a decent PF like Hump was better than any offers Ainge was getting as far back as 2010 and 2011 for these guys. Ainge summer of 2012 was in the position Gavitt was summer of 1992, with no good offers for his old players, coming off a competitive playoffs, fun young players (Lewis was 27 and Rondo was 26) to build around, and hoping Bird came back for 1-2 more years (his contract was through 1994) like Ainge hoped Ray took the 2 year deal on the table.

    4. If Ray hobbling through the '12 Heat series and then signing with them after was the death and end of the new big 3 era, then Bird hobbling through the Cavs series (the C's have won) in '92 and retiring after the Dream Team Olympics was the death of the old big 3. Bird waited until August 18th, after the draft and free agency and playing well in Barecelona to drop the retirement news.

    Was any team out there willing to give the Celtics the Nets offer of THREE first round picks in 1993-95-97, the offer to swap picks in '96, cap relief and an expiring contract solid near double-double 29 year old PF back in 1992 for Parish and McHale???

    No Way. Gavitt said this repeatedly. There was no market for McHale, who limped through 56 games in 1992 and everyone knew was going to retire in '93 and Parish, who was 39 years old before the 92-93 season began. Say Bird did tell them after the season he was done and they tried to blow it up that summer. MAYBE we can ASSUME a contender hoping to knock off the Bulls like the Blazers, Jazz or Knicks  would have given them a pick in the late 20's in '92 and another late pick in '94 for them. Probably the very best offer.

    1992 - The Knicks picked Hubert Davis, the Jazz Lee Maybury and the Blazers Dave Johnson. All pretty worthless. I guess we can 'pretend' the Celtics would be smart enough to take P.J. Brown, the 2nd pick in the 2nd round.

    1994 - One of those 3 teams is at least in the bottom 4 of the draft, having been better as they coaxed an extra year out of McHale and had Parish still productive (for a backup) at age 41. The last 4 picks in 1994? Monty Williams,Brooks Thompson, Charlie Ward, Greg Minor. I guess we can 'pretend' that even with Dee and Sherm the C's take local BC kid Howard Eisley, the 3rd pick in a horrible 2nd round.

    So there you have it Fierce. The Celtics add a young Humphries and local guard like Marshon Brooks back in 1992 and 1994 with the picks they get for McHale/Parish. The real assets C's just got for KG/PP (the unprotected '16/'18 picks) are of course NOT in that package.

    Can't help pity Gavitt for adding the veteran McDaniels like Ainge added Terry, hoping the Celtics were healthy in '93 and that he could convince Bird to give it one more go. Bird brought in so much cash and attention that it was worth hoping the Olympics got that fire burning for 1 more year and the back felt better. There was definitely no chance of luring him back if he traded McHale and Parish. With Lewis, Brown and Fox at the very least young stars and starters as bright as Rondo, Green and Bradley, Gavitt pulled an Ainge after the 2012 East Finals loss.

    A year later McHale retired (as a Celtic) and the team had 1 more year of a 40 year old Parish under contract, trade value of what? A 2nd round pick? They assumed he would retire when that contract was up and preffered he mentor Acie Earl and retire a Celtic as well.

    Fierce wrong again. The death of the rebuild began with Red's mistakes in 1989 and continued with his signing of Wilkins in 1995. It had little to do with the failure to trade Parish and McHale in 1992 or Parish in 1993.

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

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    In response to Fiercy's comment:

    Sign and trades are not as enticing anymore.

    Proof of this is David West and Dwight Howard leaving and their former teams got nothing in return.

    Reality trumps creativity when it comes to sign and trades.




    Wrong Again!

    and not 'proof' at all.

    Is Chris Humphries a max player like Dwight Howard?

    Why was a sign and trade not enticing for Dwight Fiercy? Tell the truth when you post.

    Known for frequently changing his mind when he considered free agency when he played for Orlando, Howard called the Lakers to say he was “50-50’’ about re-signing with them, according to ESPN. Howard was having second thoughts because he will lose at least $30 million by signing with the Rockets and walking away from the Lakers’ five-year, $118 million offer.

    ww.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/pressure-howard-heading-rockets-article-1.1391394#ixzz2tQtCk89x   Dwight chose better mental health and a younger wing in Harden over 30 million and Kobe.   A sign and trade would have just gotten Dwight the same 4/88 he took from Houston so it was not enticing to him. The CBA has made staying with your current team more enticing in the new CBA.  

    But Fiercy didn't even know the rules of the new cap and thought teams could only sign and trade players for four years but could sign other players for five! Hahaha.

    So nobody can take your word for it when you say 'sign and trades are not as enticing anymore'. You are misleading and wrong. Less enticing for who? Superstars? Yes.Keith Bogans? Nope!

    Bogans got 5 million over the veteran min he'd likely have had to take on the open market. Was a sign and trade more enticing to Keith? This summer Chris Humphries is not going to reject a 5 years 65 million max contract offer from the Celtics to take 4 years and 48 million from another team like Dwight did. Get it Fierce?

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

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    In response to Fiercy's comment:

    Sign and trades are not as enticing anymore.

    Proof of this is David West and Dwight Howard leaving and their former teams got nothing in return.

    Reality trumps creativity when it comes to sign and trades.




    Let's talk David West now Fiercy. Where you are WRONG AGAIN when you try to compare his situation to what I said Hump's situation is.

    West took two years 20 million (10m per) from Indy over the sign and trade 3 years 29 million from the Celtics (9.67m per).

    http://espn.go.com/boston/nba/story/_/id/7433214/david-west-says-indiana-pacers-were-better-fit-boston-celtics

    Then he signed a 2 year 24 million deal last summer. 3 years in Boston for 29 million or 3 in Indy for 32?

    Had the best offer in free agency for West been 4 years 30 million back in 2011 (like Hump might get this summer) and Boston came along with a 3 year 29 million deal, the most they could do with Jermaine O'Neal's expiring contract, it would've been a whole different story.

    So the kind of sign and trade the Celtics can help facilitate for Hump, up to 4 years and 50 million, could be more beneficial to him than the offers he will get on the  open market that won't approach that (he is more Bogans than Dwight). As long as the Celtics like the assets they get back being worth the contracts they have to take back, this can be a win-win.

    You can still be right using David West as an example Fierce

    If you think some team will offer Humphries 4 years and 50 million, or VERY close to it. Otherwise it is very likely Humphries can get a better contract being signed and traded by Boston than he would on the open market.

    So Fiercy, put your money where your mouth is. If free agency us more enticing to Hump than a sign and trade you must think he is worth a 4 year 50 million contract. Do you? Do you think Chris Humphries will get VERY close to the 4 year 50 million max he can sign with other teams for? If so this can be another 'to be decided' argument and not just a 'you are wrong Ram wins right now' argument.

    Then when Hump gets 3 years 21 million in July you will be 100% wrong.

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

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    To Sum it up on how many times Fiercy was wrong in his own thread (this never gets old):

    1. Xavier McDaniel was not signed after Reggie Lewis died. Reggie was alive and played the entire 1992-93 season with him.

    2. Dave Gavitt was not 'setting the Celtics back' going for the playoffs in 1993, 1994 and 1995. Just 1993 when he was in a Danny Ainge after game 7 of the 2012 ECF position. In 1994 he wanted to lose and built a team that went to the lottery. In 1995 he wanted to lose and was demoted from his CEO postion.


    3. Dave Gavitt did not choose to go for the playoffs with Dominique Wilkins over rebuilding. Gavitt was forced out for not wanting to make moves like this and Red picked Wilkins.

    4. The decisions of Red in 1989... even before I had to tell Fierce Red signed Wilkins... were what set the rebuild of the 90's back more than Gavitt not being able to get value for Parish and McHale after Bird retired and Lewis died.

    5. Saying sign and trades are 'not enticing for free agents anymore' is misleading and wrong.

    What free agents Fierce?? Max contract free agents that's who. Is Kris Humphries a max player fierce? Will the Celtics be offering him 5 years 65 million? Will teams be lining up to give him the max 4 year deal they can offer of 4 years 50 million?

    was Keith Bogans hurt by the sign and trade that got him 5 million instead of 1.5 million Fierce?

    Hahaha

    When are the Bulls moving Boozer and their good pick in the deep '14 draft for an expiring contract in a salary dump Fierce? We'll see if that gem idea of your goes down in the next 12 days.

    Ram - 23

    Fierce - 2

    TBD - 3

     
  12. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    To Sum it up on how many times Fiercy was wrong in his own thread (this never gets old):

    1. Xavier McDaniel was not signed after Reggie Lewis died. Reggie was alive and played the entire 1992-93 season with him.

    2. Dave Gavitt was not 'setting the Celtics back' going for the playoffs in 1993, 1994 and 1995. Just 1993 when he was in a Danny Ainge after game 7 of the 2012 ECF position. In 1994 he wanted to lose and built a team that went to the lottery. In 1995 he wanted to lose and was demoted from his CEO postion.


    3. Dave Gavitt did NOT choose to go for the playoffs with Dominique Wilkins over rebuilding. Gavitt was forced out for not wanting to make moves like this and Red picked Wilkins.

    4. The decisions of Red in 1989... even before I had to tell Fierce Red signed Wilkins... were what set the rebuild of the 90's back more than Gavitt not being able to get value for Parish and McHale after Bird retired and Lewis died.

    5. Saying sign and trades are 'not enticing for free agents anymore' is misleading and wrong.

    What free agents Fierce?? Max contract free agents that's who. Is Kris Humphries a max player Fiercy? Will the Celtics be offering him 5 years 65 million? Will teams be lining up to give him the max 4 year deal they can offer of 4 years 50 million?

    was Keith Bogans hurt by the sign and trade that got him 5 million instead of 1.5 million Fierce?

    Hahaha

    When are the Bulls moving Boozer and their good pick in the deep '14 draft for an expiring contract in a salary dump Fierce? We'll see if that gem idea of your goes down in the next few days.

    Ram - 23

    Fierce - 2

    TBD - 3

     
  14. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    I'm still waiting for Fiercy to explain his reasoning here in this thread HE started. Fiercy feels what Gavitt did in 1992 and 1993 hurt the 1990's Celtics more than what Red did in 1989. 

    So it is worse to:

    A. Sign Xavier McDaniels to a 50 win playoff team with a few good young players like Lewis, Douglas, Fox, Gamble and Brown b/c he hoped Bird, McHale and Parish would all be together for one more run (like Ainge signing Terry to a team with young guys Rondo, Green, Bradley, Bass and Lee b/c he hoped for one more KG/Pierce run in 2012)

    B. THEN Gavitt watched Bird retire in August after the draft (AFTER X signed and free agency ended) and after the Olympics, when Larry's contract ran through 1994 and the Celtics were hoping he would give it one more go.

    C. Not at that time or during that season trade McHale's soon to retire corpse that limped through 56 games in '92 and a 39 year old Parish for 'whatever we could get'.

    D. Watch Reggie Lewis die in the most awful of circumstances

    E. Not then trade a 40 year old Parish w/ one year left on his deal...for what? A 2nd round pick? Everyone just thought he'd retire after the 1993-1994 season as a Celtic.

    Then to do this in 1989?

    A. Storm into a board meeting where the last details of a McHale for Schrempf/Sam Perkins trade were being ironed out and annouce 'if you trade McHale you might as well fire me' (Red was 72 years old at this point)

    B. Instead of trading the 32 year old McHale (and the screws in his foot) who EVERYONE knew wasn't half the player he was two years earlier (despite still scoring 23ppg), Red trades the always healthy 30 year old Danny Ainge.... after the smarmy Ainge tells Red that if he were GM he'd trade 1-2 of the Big 3 while he still could.

    C. Come draft night when your staff is again poised to make a move for young talent and Tim Hardaway is about to be brought in to replace the old and soon to retire Dennis Johnson, Red overrules everyone at the last second to take 24 year old Michael Smith, evaluated as a borderline 1st round pick whose game belonged in the 1960's not 1990's.

    D. Then Red lowballs rookie Brian Shaw, after a season of greatly exceeding expectations, by offering him the bare minimum 1 year 150k contract he just played for and watching him flee to Italy for 1 million, when Shaw said 300k would have kept him.

    So instead of entering the 90's with soon to be 22/10 all-star Tim Hardaway, two guys in their prime who could start and give you 16/8 in 26 year old Detlef Schrempf and 28 year old Sam Perkins, 30 year old Danny Ainge who was about to drop 18ppg and 6apg for the Kings and a 24 year old Brian Shaw who'd be an elite 6th or 7th man...

    You enter the 90's with 32 year old McHale about to go into serious decline. One of the biggest draft bust in franchise history in Smith and 10th, 11th and 12th men Pinckney, Kleine and John Bagley.

    Red murdered the 1990's rebuild in 1989

    After 'firing' Gavitt in 1994 (b/c Gavitt wanted to do the right thing and tank) he murdered the rebuild again by using all cap space to sign Wilkins, Purvis and Barros in order to keep the team competitive and lose any shot at getting a desperately needed a top 5 pick.

    Whose decisions set us back more in the 1990's Fierce? It is a simple question.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    In response to Fiercy's comment:

    In response to rameakap's comment:

     

    Whose decisions set us back more in the 1990's Fierce? It is a simple question.

     



    Mental illness.

     

    You keep asking the same question and you expect to get a different answer every time.

     

    I'll give you a hint.

    What was done to correct those decisions that you didn't like?



    It's quite simple... the terrible decisions in 1989 made by Red set the Celtics franchise back in the decade of the 1990's more than Gavitt's decisions after Bird retired.

    If you disagree with that statement.... you are wrong.

    You have yet to provide any proof otherise. 

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

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    In response to rameakap's comment:

    In response to Fiercy's comment:

    In response to rameakap's comment:

     

    Whose decisions set us back more in the 1990's Fierce? It is a simple question.

     



    Mental illness.

     

    You keep asking the same question and you expect to get a different answer every time.

     

    I'll give you a hint.

    What was done to correct those decisions that you didn't like?



    It's quite simple... the terrible decisions in 1989 made by Red set the Celtics franchise back in the decade of the 1990's more than Gavitt's decisions after Bird retired.

    If you disagree with that statement.... you are wrong.

    You have yet to provide any proof otherise. 

    Be careful rame.... our masochist has you right where he wants you.... kickin' his azz again... exactly what he set out to accomplish.

    He now has three viable options:

    (1) Squalling that you are a racist for daring to 2nd guess him....

    2) squalling that you are a redcist for daring to 2nd guess Red...

    or

    (3) his dreaded last option...  going nuclear...

    Squalling that you are a  racist redcist for pretending to 2nd guess both of them.

    Pud

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

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    I'd still say the death of Lenny Bias trumped all of the above decisions. Instead of Michael Jordan of the 90s it would been Bias vs Jordan. Similar to Bird vs Magic of the 80s. 

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

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    In response to CeltsFanInNH's comment:

    I'd still say the death of Lenny Bias trumped all of the above decisions. Instead of Michael Jordan of the 90s it would been Bias vs Jordan. Similar to Bird vs Magic of the 80s. 



    I tend to agree with you, but we'll never know for sure. Which is why I stick with the Auerbach set the 90's back argument... we know what he did in '89 were epic blunders and what likely would have been the case if he made the obvious calls his own front office wanted.

    We know Auerbach messed the 90's rebuild up more than Gavitt (unless you are Fierce, who is wrong on this and refuses to answer the question b/c he knows it).

    We don't know if Bias-Jordan would have been the 90's Magic-Bird though. 

     

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

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    What we can be 99% certain about is if Bias lived the Celtics 80's dynasty would have been a lot more special.

    Lenny played 37 minutes and put up 23 points and 7 boards his senior year at Maryland.

    So really all he had to do was come off the Celtics bench for like 31-33 minutes a game, and put up 15 points and 6 boards a game with active, athletic defense, for the Celtics to have won the '87 championship and at worst gone down fighting the '88 Lakers.

    The '87 team used Fred Roberts and Darren Daye as their 7th and 8th men backing up the big 3, and those guys combined for 27 minutes, 9.5 points, 4 boards and I'm pretty certain lost the +/- battles all the time.

    Subtract them and add Bias and maybe you have the 6-7 more wins to steal homecourt from LA in '87 but if not, the C's definitely had the firepower to win in those finals they lost 4-2 (and by 1 point on a hookshot w/ McHale playing on a broken foot).

    Then facing the same situation, losing 4-2 to the '88 Pistons with no bench, having the firepower to get past them and face LA again. Unless Bias was the 23/7 guy he was at Maryland by then, they might have lost to those Lakers. But hey, even if he wasn't a superstar he would have made the late 80's teams WAY better at a minimum. 

    Keeping Bird and McHale healthy would have been huge and we'll never know if having him there would have kept all those injuries at bay and so after '88 we can't really say what Bias would have changed the way we can say with more certainty what Red's blown '89 moved would have done b/c Schrempf, Perkins, Ainge and Hardaway were alive and well and totally outplaying McHale, Michael Smith, Pinckney and Joe Kleine in the early 90's. 

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

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    In response to puddinpuddin's comment:

    Be careful rame.... our masochist has you right where he wants you.... kickin' his azz again... exactly what he set out to accomplish.

    He now has three viable options:

    (1) Squalling that you are a racist for daring to 2nd guess him....

    2) squalling that you are a redcist for daring to 2nd guess Red...

    or

    (3) his dreaded last option...  going nuclear...

    Squalling that you are a  racist redcist for pretending to 2nd guess both of them.

    Pud



    Hahahahaha

    Fierce lose this one badly

    Saying I'm asking the same question expecting a different answer is moronic. He's not answering the question.

    'Dave Gavitt did nothing to rebuild the Celtics after Red made those decisions and Bird retired and Lewis died' is NOT the answer to (or proof that) Gavitt set the 1990's back further than Red Auerbach.

    If he honestly believes 1992-93 Gavitt failed worse than 1989 Red then he his a complete fool. I proved him wrong and that should be the end of it.

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

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    I'll end this argument I already won several times over with this short story for Fiercy:

    Say somebody offers me a nice fairly new and reliable sedan AND a motorcycle that's newer and better than the one I own now, in a trade for my older luxury sedan, that is just getting unreliable. It has had trouble shifting for 2 years, I'm pretty sure in 1-2 more it'll be in the shop all the time and in 4 years be completely done. But I love it, so I say no. EVERYONE in my life is shocked, calls it a dumb setimental decision.

    Because I didn't make that trade, I impulsively trade my motorcycle for a scooter and a piece of cr@p pickup truck after just to 'mix things up'. Give me more options in case mt luxury sedan breaks down.

    Four months later I'm at an auto auction with a bunch of my friends, and this really nice, fast, brand new sports car slips into my price range and all my friends say 'Take it! Take it! My GOD this is great' and I almost do, but at the last second buy a Ford Aerostar van that nobody else was bidding on for the same price I could have had the sports car at, for no good reason, only somebody said to me a few days earlier that van might triple in value in a couple years. Oops, should have listened to my friends and common sense because it turns out the van is worth NOTHING just one year later and I'm a laughingstock while it is the sports car that tripled in value.

    So I turn to my wife, who never had a say in any of this idiocy of mine, and say 'Sorry babe, I'm getting to old to be trusted around here, you're in charge of fixing this.'

    My wife tries to fix my old unreliable luxury sedan, but it is too far gone, all offers to trade it in are worth far less than just another trip to the shop to squeeze a little more out of it. The dirt bike and pickup truck are worthless as well. Plus, all our money went to the van, that broke completely and we dumped, so there are not more good chances at auto auctions or even a great trade-in asset when we should just be trying to dump everything and start from scratch. So she just rolls with what we have.

    So who is to blame for our troubles?

    A. My wife for not making drastic changes when she was in charge of fixing my mistake

    B. Me, for making two MASSIVE mistakes, and one pretty dumb one, to begin with, and giving my wife nothing to work with at all

    Hmmm

    I'd blame the multiple dumb mistakes over the person put between a rock and a hard place being asked to clean them up

    Fiercy would blame my poor wife for 'doing nothing'

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share