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]


    There you again with your FANTASIES.

    Like I said, there's a difference between fantasy and reality.

    [/QUOTE]

    FANTASY - Gavitt had the ability to make dramatic moves in 1992 and 1993, ones that Fiercy 'requested' but gave no examples/proof of being possible... such as trading McHale and Parish for draft picks like the deal the Nets gave the C's for Pierce/KG, or trading high into the draft lottery from where they were always picking in the 20's.

    REALITY - Gavitt constantly said there were no acceptable trade offers out there to rebuild around in '92/'93. Bird backed this up in his autobiography, Ainge backed this up NUMEROUS times in his quotes around the '10 and '11 trade deadline and summer trade rumors involving PP/KG. The time to trade the old big 3 was '1989 when Ainge told Red to and Red traded Danny instead.

    REALITY - Schrempf/Perkins was on the table for McHale in 1989 and based on stats and future value of two younger players would have made the '91/'92 teams BETTER and the '93/'94 teams easier rebuilding projects

    REALITY - Red traded Ainge for Pinckney/Kleine instead

    REALITY - Red passed on Tim Hardaway for Michael Smith, this ONE move was worse than anything Gavitt did in his entire tenure, let alone '92/'93

    REALITY - Those 1989 moves crushed the Celtics efforts to rebuild and stabilize themselve sin 1990's more than anything else short of Bias living and becoming a star.

    FANTASY - That Gavitt did more to 'set back' the 90's rebuild than Red and that Gavitt was 'fired' b/c he did nothing.

    REALITY - Gavitt was forced out/resigned b/c Red, M.L. Carr and the owners did not listen to him and Bird and wanted to throw $ around to mediocre veterans, remain a playoff teams and not do what was necessary to properly rebuild.

    Fiercy lost this argument days ago yet continues to show up, post garbage, and get shown why he is WRONG again and again. Glutton for punishment huh Fiercy?

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    Here is the best case/worst case for our opposing arguments Fiercy, since you absolutely lack the creativity or intel about the situation at the time to do this on your own,  I will actually try to support and win YOUR side for you:-)

    Red makes right moves in 1989, worst case scenario is:

    - 1990-1992 teams win more regular season games and still lose to Pistons or Bulls in round 2

    - A new GM/decision maker is needed to replace Red either after Bird retires or Lewis dies

    - Team has at least Schrempf and Hardaway to use as trade assets (maybe not Perkins)

    Regardless of if the WORSE happened. The team is still in a MUCH better position in 1993/1994 if Red made those deals in 1989. 

     

     

     

     
  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:

    rame

     

    You're the one who's a glutton for punishment.

    I asked you to prove that Gavitt wanted Eddie Jones.

    Where's the proof?

    Hahahhahaahahaha

    I asked you to answer many questions and you never did.

    You are so wrong on this one it is pathetic to watch you ask random questions to distract from the main idea. That being Red's '89 decisions being worse than Gavitt's '92/'93 do nothing to rebuild decisions because he had no better options.

    Read Larry's autobiography it says the stuff about Gavitt and Eddie Jones in there

    Bird felt Gavitt was a genius and father figure who was treated terribly by the front office. Both of them wanted Eddie Jones in the '94 draft and both of them were against Dominique being signed.

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

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    What is pathetic is someone so who feels Red obviously blew it with Smith over Hardaway being so dumb as to not realize that ONE MOVE messed the '90's up more than Gavitt.

    Has Fiercy provided any proof that once Bird retired Gavitt could have gotten draft picks for Parish and McHale and gotten the team into the lottery???

    Nope!

    Gavitt, Bird and Ainge have all said nobody offered anything for those guys after the deals that Red turned down in the '88-'90 time frame.

    Where is YOUR PROOF Fiercy??

    'Doing nothing' and crying about the signing of Xavier McDaniel (who you foolishly thought was brought in AFTER Lewis died) and not being able to sign Jon Barry was your only solid proof.

    That against the '89 draft and the confirmed Schrempf/Perkins for McHale trade???

    Hahahaha

    You have been proven to have no clue about 'what set the Celtics back in the 1990's'

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  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:

    I asked you a simple question and you can't answer it.

    You got caught lying. 

    I've been a Celtic fan since the 1980s and I never heard of Gavitt wanting the Celts to pick Eddie Jones.

    Now you see why you always lose?

    Again, fantasy, it's not real.

    You have proven time and time again that you cannot remember ANYTHING about the Celtics before the Pitino era, so you definitely cannot remember the 80's.

    You lost this one BADLY

    Go read Bird's autobiography if you want the facts about him, Gavitt and Eddie Jones so badly

    Caught LYING is YOU saying X was signed after Lewis died (a LIE they played a year together) and that Gavitt signed Dominique Wilkins (a LIE, Carr and Red did this).

    It has been made clear in this thread and others how Red's moves in 1989 doomed the franchise in thr 1990's and 'set us back' more than what Gavitt did in '92/'93.

    You have proved ZERO proof to beat my FACTS

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. 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]

    rame

    Michael Smith was bust.

    That's a fact.

     

    But saying that the Celts would've been better off with Sam Perkins and Detlef Schrempf is just an opinion, not a fact.

     

    And you're going to lie about Gavitt wanting Eddie Jones?

    HAHAHA

    [/QUOTE]

    Saying the Celtics would be better with Hardaway than Smith is the EXACT SAME FACT as saying the Celtics would be better with Perkins and Schrempf.

    HAHAHA

    Stats don't lie. 

    YOU DO

    Wilkins was a Gavitt move? A Fiercy LIE

    McDaniels was signed after Lewis died? A Fiercy LIE

    Are you are trying to tell me that Schrempf and Perkins would have totally fallen apart, not been solid players here (like they were until the late 90's on multiple other teams) and had LESS trade value in 1992/93 than Parish/McHale?

    If so you are LYING again

    Schrempf/Perkins is not fantasy... it was an offer on the table Red rejected. 

    Hardway over Smith ALONE changes the entire 1990's for the better and trumps anything Gavitt could have done to change things by 92/93.

    Where is your proof otherwise Fiercy?

    You have none. NOTHING. No clue about what went down and no proof that Gavitt could have done anything that would have completely fixed the MASSIVE mistakes Red made in 1989.

    You lost

    Now go read Bird's autobiography to answer your useless Eddie Jones question that does nothing to change the facts.

     

     
  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

    In response to Fiercy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    rame

     

    Let me help you out.

    It was Chris Ford that wanted Eddie Jones.

    Here:

    http://cache.boston.com/globe/magazine/1999/9-19/featurestory1.shtml

    It must have seemed to Chris Ford that he never got who he wanted. 
    In 1994, when the Celtics had the eighth pick in the draft, he wanted the guard
    from Temple, Eddie Jones, really bad.

    [/QUOTE]

    Again, this is why those of us old enough to remember can stomp out your foolishness when you don't know what was going on then.

    There was a power struggle going on in the organization.

    Bird, Ford and Gavitt were on one side. They were in agreement on most things.

    The owners, Red, Volk and Carr were on the other side.

    Gavitt was forced out. Ford was fired, and Bird, the icon nobody could touch, was asked to 'stay involved' and disrespected at every turn so he took the Indiana job when Pitino was hired.

    Get it?

    How about you spend your time fiinding proof to prove Red's decisions in 1989 didn't set the franchise back more than Gavitt's in 92/93???

    Hahahahaha

    You are so wrong it's stupid

     
  14. 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

    Tim Hardaway became an All-Star.

    Michael Smith became the announcer of the Clippers.

    See the difference?

    You're trying to mask the truth by manipulating the facts.

    I said this, I said that, blah, blah, blah. 

    But here's thing, when asked what Gavitt did of significance during his time with the Celts, you can only answer Dee Brown and Rick Fox.

    Even ML Carr trumped that with Antoine Walker.

    And you lied about Gavitt wanting Eddie Jones.



    Hahahahaha

    Only liar is YOU

    Go read the book

    And show me some facts that support your side

    You have ZERO

    Tell me something Gavitt could have done that would have reversed the horrible mistakes Red made in 1989.... YOU CAN'T!

    Fantasy is your sad world of ignorance about a time you can't remember Fiercy

    Keep telling me how Hardaway was an all-star and Smith the Clippers announcer. Those are FACTS that prove YOU WRONG. Hardaway over Smith alone would have changed the outcome of the 90's tremendously. 

    You don't have a clue how idiotic you look huh?

     
  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

    Hahaha.... poor Fiercy, trying to avoid the point b/c he lost. Let me help you remember what this thread YOU started said in it's first post:

    What set us back in the 1990s

    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.

    The Celtics wasted 3 years by signing those players.

    Eventually the Celts hit rock bottom in 1997.

    First of all, Fiercy the clueless didn't even know Gavitt didn't sign Dominique Wilkins, that was Carr and Red. HALF your argument is a FAIL right there. Gavitt signs Xavier McDaniel but NOT Dominique Wilkins. A Fiercy LIE.

    So... that means he only set the C's back ONE year right? I mean they were in the lotto in '94, which is the goal of a rebuilding team. Then Carr, Red and the owners come along and want to sign Wilkins and make the playoffs again, so Gavitt and his tank plans are forced out and the rebuild is 'set back' 1-2 years.

    So Gavitt kept trying to win with McDaniel 1992-93 (when Lewis was ALIVE, you said he was already dead when X was signed, another lie), and set the rebuild back one year right?

    Are you following yet? I know you want to move the goal posts and get off topic, but please stick to responding to the comments that rip apart the topic of this thread and show your original comments to be LIES, garbage and full of holes.

     

     

     
  18. 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]

    You're the one looking like a total idiot.

    Red made a mistake by choosing Smith over Hardaway.

    It's done.

    Nothing we can do about that. 

    But Dave Gavitt was hired to take over for Red and he was given total control of the Celtic front office in 1990.

    So what did Dave Gavitt do to correct Red's mistake or mistakes?

    Nothing, right?

    Gavitt's Moves:

    Drafting Dee Brown, Rick Fox, Jon Barry, and Acie Earl.

    Trading Brian Shaw for Sherman Douglas and Jon Barry for Alaa Abdelnaby.

    Signing Xavier McDaniel in 1992. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Can you prove yourself wrong with your own comments anymore than this Fiercy?

    Red made a mistake as you said... it was a bigger one than ANYTHING Gavitt did.

    Bird retired in August of 1992. Your thread said Gavitt 'set us back in the 1990's' with the moves he did after Bird retired.

    Please explain to us Fiercy what Dave Gavitt could have done after Bird retired to avoid 'setting us back in the '90's' more than what Red's horrible mistakes in 1989 already did.

    That is the point of this thread right?

    I read your original post correctly right?

    So please provide PROOF... what could Gavitt have done in 1992 to rebuild the Celtics that would have been better than adding Tim Hardaway instead of Michael Smith and accepting the best trade package this team would EVER get for McHale back in 1989.

    I say NOTHING. There was NOTHING Gavitt could have done in 1992 and 1993 that would have turned this franchise around more than just adding Hardaway over Smith would have done, let alone accepting that CONFIRMED offer for McHale and not trading Ainge or letting Shaw go to Italy.

    Got anything Fiercy? Anything at all?

    I provided PROOF of what could have/should have been but for Red's blunders.

    You provide NOTHING.

    That is why you lost.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  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:
    [QUOTE]

    "I provided PROOF of what could have/should have been but for Red's blunders."

     

    Coulda, woulda, shoulda, is for LOSERS!

     

    It's like you're telling us that you can predict the past.

     

    Again, the concept is very simple, if you think Red made mistakes, are you telling us that Dave Gavitt couldn't do anything to correct the mistakes of the past?

     

    Dave Gavitt had total control of the Celtic front office starting in 1990.

    Nothing significant happened from 1990 to 1994.

    Gavitt ended up getting fired.

     

    And his greatest accomplishments are drafting Rick Fox and Dee Brown?

    HAHAHA

    [/QUOTE]


    Hahahaha

    Repeat that line over and over Fiercy

    It proves NOTHING

    You LOSE

    Your thread topic clearly blames Dave Gavitt's moves AFTER Bird retires (NOT 1990 OR 1991) for setting the team back in the 90's.

    I blame Red's moves of 1989 as setting us back more. I proved it. You proved nothing.

    We are all still waiting Fiercy. Waiting for you to retract your BS thread subject after I shoved reality down your throat, or else give us PROOF of what Gavitt could have done in 1992 that would have rebuilt the Celtics more than even just having Tim Hardaway over Michael Smith.

    You've got NOTHING

    You LOST

    Get it?

     

     
  22. 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]

    "Please explain to us Fiercy what Dave Gavitt could have done after Bird retired to avoid 'setting us back in the '90's' more than what Red's horrible mistakes in 1989 already did."

    EXACTLY!

     

    Gavitt did nothing!

     

    Did he move up in the draft?

    Was there a big name free-agent signing?

    Who did Gavitt get through trades that had an impact on the Celtics?

     

    I don't know why you're having a hard time understanding it.

    It's not what Gavitt did, it's because he did NOTHING!

    [/QUOTE]


    You're a complete fool.

    Tell us REALISTICALLY the SOMETHING Gavitt could have done in 1992 that would have made the 1990's go better than if the team had Tim Hardaway over Michael Smith and accepted the best trade offer they would ever get for a damaged Kevin McHale.

    You can't!

    There is NO EVIDENCE of ANYTHING Gavitt could have done that wouldn't have set the team back farther than what Red did in '89.

    You are a coward. You can't do research, you can't be creative and you can't defend your thread topic and postion with ANYTHING other than 'Gavitt did nothing'

    Pathetic

    The proof is what EVERYONE knows would have been done in 1989 if Red didn't destroy the well laid plans of the rest of his front office to rebuild in 90's.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: What set us back in the 1990s

    If that is the answer to your thread topic.

    And you say Gavitt doing nothing set the Celtics back more than what Red did and didn't do in 1989... you are WRONG.

    Get it?

    We're all still waiting for you to tell us what Gavitt turned down or 'didn't do' in 1992 that would have turned the franchise around more than even having JUST Tim Hardaway over Michael Smith.

    Waiting...


    Waiting...

    **crickets**

    Fiercy lost.... yawn... this thread is boring now. He says the same moronic response that proves him wrong and myself right to every question asked of him.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share