What set us back in the 1990s

  1. 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:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rameakap's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    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. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The problem is even if Red made mistakes, Dave Gavitt could've corrected them by doing something.

     

    But he didn't.

     

    Every GM the Celts had since Gavitt all did something of significance.

     

    Red made a mistake in 1989 so Gavitt couldn't correct it from 1990 to 1994?

    That's stupid!

    [/QUOTE]

    It's not stupid at all.

    It just shows you have no idea about the roster and the league and what was going on in the organization back then.

    I won this argument already Fierce, I showed you what the future rosters and situations would almost certainly been like if Red didn't screw up 1989 so badly.

    You have also now moved the goal post from 'AFTER BIRD RETIRED' (1992) to 'Gavitt had four years 1990-94 to fix Red's mistake'

    Losers of arguments move goal posts. Even if you now say Gavitt should have been fixing Red's mistakes as early as 1990, two years before you originally said he 'set the franchise back' it still does not make up for Red's original mistakes.

     

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

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    You saying Gavitt screwed it up MORE because he did nothing to fix horrible errors by Red... is WRONG.

    The errors themselves that would have put Tim Hardaway, Detelef Schrempf, Danny Ainge, Brian Shaw and Sam Perkins on the 1990 Celtics instead of Kevin McHale, John Bagley, Ed Pinckney, Joe Kleine and Michael Smith could have won us another championship. They could have extended Bird's career and effectiveness with more rest and better guys around him. But those are no guarantees.

    They would have made 52-56-51 win teams in 1990-1991-1992 60+ win teams that were MUCH more dangerous, tougher to play in the playoffs and much more fun to watch.

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

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    Had Red done what his front office wanted/expected it would have resulted in FOUR big trade assets by 1993, instead of two (Dee Brown and Fox) and a MONSTER mutiple 1st round pick trade asset in Hardaway (if they decided to rebuild then). 

    My argument was not flawed b/c "Gavitt could have got something for Parish who played until 1997' Really? Hahahahahaha

    Parish was 39 in 1992 so Gavitt not getting a late first rd pick in the 20's for him in 1992 or a 2nd rd pick for him when he was 40 in 1993 but instead watching him leave as a free agent in 1994 (when everyone thought he would retire) makes my argument flawed?

    HA! If Parish could have been traded for ANYTHING CLOSE TO the 1989 McHale deal Gavitt would have done it.

    Red set the 90's back with what he did in 1989 more than Gavitt's tenure of doing little with the situation Red left.

     
  4. 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:
    [QUOTE]

    Had Red done what his front office wanted/expected it would have resulted in FOUR big trade assets by 1993, instead of two (Dee Brown and Fox) and a MONSTER mutiple 1st round pick trade asset in Hardaway (if they decided to rebuild then). 

    My argument was not flawed b/c "Gavitt could have got something for Parish who played until 1997' Really? Hahahahahaha

    Parish was 39 in 1992 so Gavitt not getting a late first rd pick in the 20's for him in 1992 or a 2nd rd pick for him when he was 40 in 1993 but instead watching him leave as a free agent in 1994 (when everyone thought he would retire) makes my argument flawed?

    HA! If Parish could have been traded for ANYTHING CLOSE TO the 1989 McHale deal Gavitt would have done it.

    Red set the 90's back with what he did in 1989 more than Gavitt's tenure of doing little with the situation Red left.

    [/QUOTE]


    In '92, that "something" Gavitt might have gotten for Parish in trade was at best a half pound of imported weed.

    By '94, maybe a quarter pound of stale home grown and a few roach clips.

    So technically fungus is correct.

    Gavitt could have scored... but dropped the bong ball.

    Pud

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    Gavitt got fired for wanting to tank.... not wanting to sign Dominique Wilkins and be an 8th seed in the playoffs... like you wanted them to be doing! HA. They would have fired you as well.

    They (Red and ML) turned Montross into pick #6 and Pitino turned it into Mercer. Gavitt had been demoted at the time and wanted them to take Eddie Jones. Not much proof for your side, they could have just had a better player for a decade if they listened to Dave.

    So you think 'doing nothing' when there wasn't much he was able to do with the team capped out, Bird was never going to be traded and Parish and McHale basically untradeable by 1992 was worse than passing on the crazy good McHale trade offer (that was CONFIRMED) in '89, making the awful Ainge for Pinckney/Kleine trade instead, passing on an exciting 20ppg/10apg all-star PG and making the Michael Smith pick? You're clueless.

    You provided no facts for what Gavitt turned down, offers for trades he didn't go through with, etc. He was in charge and didn't blow it b/c nobody gave him offers like Ainge got from Brooklyn. Get it? Nobody offered him '93-'95-'97 1st round picks for McHale and Parish when Bird retired. We'd know about him turning that down if anybody did. Get it?

    What Red did and didn't do in 1989 was unacceptable and destroyed the future of the Celtics organization moving into the 90's more in 5 months than Gavitt's moves over 4 years. FACT.

    (Even though you started this thread blaming Gavitt for what he did only after Bird retired and Lewis died, so the last 21 months of his time in charge)

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

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    Just stick to the what we know Red did and didn't do in 1989 vs. what we know about Gavitt's tenure after Bird retired and Lewis died and it is clear who set the team back more.

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

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    Here is an interesting article for you Fierce... Red's daughter says her dad wouldn't have traded Pierce and KG either... despite the deal being one you and I both did backflips over.

    http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nba--red-auerbach-s-daughter--celtics-patriarch-wouldn-t-have-traded-paul-pierce--kevin-garnett-210041571.html

    It's also yet another source that confirms the McHale offer from Dallas, where are your offers for McHale and Parish that Gavitt was nuts not to take in 1992?

    Loyalty is nice and good but it was an outdated way to build a champion. Red's way was gone by 1989 and his terrible decisions set the team back in the 1990's. The greatest winner ever from 1956-1986... but he set the franchise back in the 90's more than Dave Gavitt BY FAR.

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

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    This is from a Bill Simmons article:

    1989

    I make the 45-minute drive from college to catch a home game with my father. In that summer's draft, Red spent his first rounder on a BYU forward named Michael Smith, with Tim Hardaway going one pick later. It was a curious decision -- after all, we needed a point guard much more than we needed another slow white forward. Red maintained that Smith was special. Smith reminded him of Larry Bird. That's what he said. And since he's Red Auerbach, nobody questions him.

    Of course, Hardaway starts out in Golden State like gangbusters, while Smith can't even get off Boston's bench. In this particular game, the Celtics throw him out there to see what they have. He's gawky and awkward. He can't guard anybody. He looks like one of those dorky guys in intramurals who keeps bumping into everybody and making everyone angry. Quite simply, he's terrible. Fifteen years earlier, maybe he makes it. Not now. The league has become too quick, too fast, too athletic. It's a different era.

    We watch Smith head back to the bench, his confidence completely demolished. On the other coast, Tim Hardaway is averaging 14.7 points and 8.7 assists per game as a rookie. It's impossible to look at Michael Smith and not think of Tim Hardaway.

    "Might be time to take the car keys away from Red," my father says finally.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  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

    You moved the goal posts Fierce, here is what you said at the start of this thread:

    When Bird retired, the Celts tried to keep making the playoffs.

    Celtics management also didn't try to get anything for McHale or Parish via trade.

    Instead of rebuilding immediately, the Celtics signed guys like Xavier McDaniel and a 35-year old Dominique Wilkins.

    It doesn't really matter that b/c you lost you now want to make it about what Gavitt did in 1990 and 1991 and not just for the 21 months he was still running things after Bird retired in '92.

    I don't really care that you lie and change the argument around to serve your own purpose, b/c in 1990 and 1991 Gavitt was drafting Brown and Fox and the Celtics were considered just as strong contenders as the teams Ainge didn't blow up in 2011 and 2012.

    It all goes back to Red's moves in 1989 setting the team back.

     

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

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    Here you go Fiercy, another article that gives a blow by blow of the events that happened:

    http://basketbawful.blogspot.com/2007/05/destrucity-of-celtics-part-1.html

    Please explain to me how Gavitt's signing of Xavier McDaniels and bad 1992 and 1993 drafts (after good 1990 and 1991 drafts) comes CLOSE to setting this team back farther than what Red did in 1989??

    You are so lame Fierce. You really think Dave Gavitt stuck in a position with his hands tied, no assets other than Lewis and a capped out team was really to blame for setting the club back in the 1990's?

    HA!

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

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    Other than going back to '86 and keeping Bias away from the blow that night, at what point would you want to go back in time and change the outcome of multiple mistakes being made in order to change the terrible results of the whole decade?

    1. It starts with the death of Bias.

    We can 'blame' Lenny for the 90's going so badly if we want. But we all agree we cannot know for sure what he'd have become, if he'd have kept the big 3 healthier and it was way back in '86 so there was plenty of time for a new plan. Bias being alive = better results in '87 and '88. But it's a steetch to say a pick we were gifted after winning a title should take the fall for an entire decade that started 4 years after his death.

    2. Red's decisions in 1989. 

    3. The injuries to Bird and McHale.

    The 1991 Celtics won 56 games and had homecourt over the Piston's in round 2. Bird was hurt for the playoffs and played at half effectiveness. In the series decider game 5 at home McHale and Shaw let Laimbeer and Vinnie Johnson rock them for 48 points scoring only 22. Sam Perkins and Tim Hardaway anyone? The '92 Celtics started 29-5 but couldn't hold it together when Bird and McHale went down... yet again. Schrempf played 80 games that year and Perkins 73. Shaw was traded for Sherm, a lateral move of 8-10p/5-6a PG's. Hardaway was averaging a 23/10 that year.

    IT WAS ALL OVER BY THE TIME BIRD AND MCHALE WERE GETTING HURT PLAYING FOR VERY GOOD TEAM IN '91 AND '92 AND IT WAS RED'S DECISIONS IN '89 THAT MADE THOSE ISSUES FOR THE CELTICS SUCH SEASON CRUSHING ONES. 

    Here in 1992 after Bird retires we pick things up with where Fiercy says the 90's were 'set back' because of Dave Gavitt:

    4. The Gavitt Xavier McDaniels and Jon Barry/Acie Earl moves that came after Bird and Lewis were gone.

    5. Gavitt is 'fired' before the 1994 draft and the team picks Montross, but that was not Gavitt's call or desire.

    6. Red and M.L. Carr sign Wilkins, Pervis Ellison and Dana Barros when Gavitt wants them to tank and land a top 5 pick in the '95 draft.

    It was a sickening and sad end that Red had WAY more to do with than Dave Gavitt.

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

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    Here is an article from right before the 1994 draft:

    New Boston General Manager M.L. Carr said he'll decide this weekend on the fate of Chris Ford, who might get the San Antonio job if he's released from his Celtics contract. That current GM Dave Gavitt was kicked upstairs is not a surprise considering the splintered Celtics organization, but the promotion of Carr, currently director of community relations, was. Carr never has scouted or negotiated contracts. Former Celtics great Larry Bird rejected the job and reportedly was upset about Gavitt's removal. 


    Carr then selected Montross over Eddie Jones and Jalen Rose... it was widely known at the time Gavitt and Bird preferred both of those players. I know you were only a couple of years old at the time Fierce, but it is obvious to anyone who lived through those awful 'rebuilding' times that Red messed things up in 1989 and then Red and Carr combined to mess them up again in 1994.

    BOTH of those two situations... Red passing on Dallas's offer for McHale and drafting Smith over Hardaway and then Carr and Red passing on Jones/Rose for Montross and signing Wilkins/Pervis/Barros... were worse than the moves Gavitt made or was unable to make in '92 and '93.

     
  21. 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:

     

    rame

    We both agreed that taking Michael Smith over Tim Hardaway and Shawn Kemp was a mistake.

    Why?

    Because there is proof that Hardaway and Kemp are clearly better than Michael Smith.

    Their careers is proof of that.

    BINGO!

    By saying that your entire 'Dave Gavitt did nothing after Bird retired was what set the team back most in the 90's' argument goes right out the window.

    Do you not get this??

    It was about Hardaway, who EVERYONE was set to draft and owner Paul Cohen was crazy about. Not Kemp. Do you have any idea what having a player like Hardaway would have done to the '90-'92 teams and then what having him as a trade asset in '93-'94 would have done to the rebuild after Lewis died?

    NOTHING Gavitt could have done in the 21 months between Bird retiring and his being 'moved upstairs' before the '94 draft/Wilkins offseason could have helped the Celtics rebuild more than just drafting Hardaway over Smith.

    But saying that not trading McHale for Sam Perkins and Schrempf was a mistake can't be proven.

    WRONG! Stats don't lie. Did you seriously just say this??

    We can never know for sure how that would turn out.

    Really? Are you STILL trying to argue this? From 1990-1993 McHale just got worse and worse as his body fell to pieces. 1990 was the ONLY season McHale was better to have than JUST Perkins alone and the team was bounced in the 1st round.

    1991-1993 Perkins played 215 games, scored 3,060 points, grabbed 1,652 rebounds and defended both PF's and C's very well ages 29-31. Perkins shot about one 3 pointer a game but managed FG%'s of 51-47-49% those 3 years. 

    1991-1993 McHale played 195 games, scored 2,393 points, grabbed 1,168 rebounds, lost his defensive prowess and saw his league leading 60% on FG's in '88 fall to 55% by 1990, 51% by 1992 and 46% his last year in 1993.

    Perkins ALONE is at least a wash over McHale for those 4 years. Then McHale was GONE, retired, and Perkins could have been used as a trade asset to get something, likely a late 1st round pick from a contender.

    Then you take into account Schrempf ALSO being in the deal??? It is NOT 'fantasy' to know how much better this team would have been. HE was the type of player Red was talking about when he bragged about Michael Smith. Detlef was just 2 years older than smith in 1989. '90-'93 Schrempf played in all but 6 games and averaged 16.7 points and 8.8 rebounds. WOW. Having him on the C's to help with all the games Bird missed, and then as a trade asset to send to a contender after Lewis died...

    Unreal that you feel there is no 'proof' that that was a mistake or that b/c McHale was still a 23ppg player at age 32 that Red was justified to not make a trade.

     




     

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

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    Fiercy then provides an example of his being TERRIBLE at analogies as 'proof'?

    Remember last season when Laker fans were already talking about a Heat vs. Lakers in the 2013 Finals?

    Lakers got Dwight and Nash to play with Kobe and Pau Gasol.

    Automatic championship team?

    I said 2nd round playoff team

    Only on paper, right?

    This example is TERRIBLE

    Nash was a 38 year old washed up PG. So was Dennis Johnson. The C's already had such a player.

    Bynum was similar to Howard in stats and younger. Schrempf and Perkins were both younger and healthier than McHale and gave 150% of his stats, not 110%. 

    McHale was like Gasol only with a screw in his foot.

    For your analogy to make sense Kobe/Gasol/Artest are Bird/McHale/Parish and Nash is DJ. The Celtics then take their one young talented player in Reggie Lewis (age 24) who was like Bynum (25) and trade him for a slightly older but better established all-star at the same position (Howard) so let's say Clyde Drexler (age 27). Then the situation would be similar, esp if chemistry was off between Drexler and Bird and Bird goes down for the rest of the season with an injury.

    McHale for Sam Perkins and Schrempf is woulda, coulda, shoulda fantasy.

    No, it is not, it is an offer that was on the table that RED rejected when EVERYONE ELSE wanted to take it. You cannot say that we know Hardaway had a better career that Smith so that was a mistake but then say that we don't know what Schrempf and Perkins would have done here so that is fantasy.

    At the very least both players could have been flipped for 1st round picks in the future, something Gavitt could not do with McHale and Parish like you wanted him to being doing after Bird retired. So having them would have made the rebuild better. Having them also means Ainge over Pinckney/Kleine which you never bring up.

    But we all know Dave Gavitt didn't do anything to make the Celts better during his time, right?

    You don't agree?

    So why is it that you can only mention Rick Fox and Dee Brown as Gavitt's greatest achievements?

    I don't agree.... that once Bird retired Gavitt's decisions set the 1990's rebuild back further than the decisions Red made in 1989.

    You disagree with that? It is a simple question Fiercy.

    You think what Gavitt did in 1992 and 1993 was worse for the Celtics ability to rebuild in the 90's than what Red did in 1989?

    Well... only a complete fool can possibly think that.

    There is NO WAY Gavitt had the chances in '92 and '93 to do ANYTHING like Red could have done in 1989. That is why Red blew it more, and that is why Gavitt was hired in the first place and why Fiercy's thinking is WRONG.

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

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    I already showed Fiercy what a legit analogy to 1989 looked like and he ignored it. It is NOT a Lakers trade for Nash/Howard situation AT ALL.

    Here is what Fiercy said:

    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.

    My response:

    Not at all

    How about this if you want to keep referencing what Ainge did

    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, age 29 in '10 comes to mind) would Ainge have traded KG at the 2010 deadline?

    Remember all the rumors at that deadline? The C's final run was magical and painful but unexpected. They were the 4th seed and struggling during the season. Ainge would have JUMPED on that trade for KG.

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

    Then if Ainge followed it up by passing on Greg Monroe or Paul George for Luke Babbitt or Cole Aldrich, we'd have had 5 months similar to what Red did in 1989...

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share