Why Pierce Got the 61m

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

    Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m

    Most superstars or 'stars' have needed a player with them to achieve success. The only one in recent times, it's not even recent, was Olajuwon in 1994. He was the only genuine superstar on that team.


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

    Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m

    In Response to Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m : Worthy, nobody single handedly brings a team to a finals. Every great player has a supporting cast. Jordan, Bird, Kobe, Magic,etc... I think Pierce got his contract partially out of respect, however, should he have had a cast around him in his earlier days here, I would definately say that he is a franchise player. He was always very underated because of the teams we used to have around him. I say this putting all my being a "homer" aside.
    Posted by nightrider495[/QUOTE]

    True, though Iverson took a Sixers team to the finals. He was basically the team. I also think Magic and Bird had the quality to have lifted the worse teams in the league to the finals. Both of them had the advantage of joining strong teams. Bird showed how he could lift a very average team to an NCAA final appearance. That's one of the best feats in basketball that I can recall.

    A solid supporting player of players makes it much easier.

    Said it in my last post I think the only guy true superstar to lead a team to a finals win was Olajuwon. Iverson worked wonders with that Sixers team that made it as well.

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

    Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m

    When Bird joined the Celtics it was the biggest turnaround in NBA history at the time. As others joined the team, they got better.

    It has since been surpassed by Duncan joining the Spurs, and then By KG joining the Celtics.

    All in all, it takes a team to win. One player does not win. Those talented players that understand that it takes a team to win, and put team goals ahead of personal goals, tend to win quicker and more often. Those are the kind of players that are worth their salt.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUMcHale. Show RUMcHale's posts

    Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m

    In Response to Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m : Well let me add something here.  If Paul had played 3-4 years with Shaq at his side like KOME did,
    Posted by OneOnOne[/QUOTE]


    The old IF argument.........tiresome.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BirdandCowens. Show BirdandCowens's posts

    Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m

    In Response to Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m : The old IF argument.........tiresome.
    Posted by RUMcHale[/QUOTE]

    Your pretending to be a Celtics fan...........tiresome
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUMcHale. Show RUMcHale's posts

    Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m

    In Response to Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m : Your pretending to be a Celtics fan...........tiresome
    Posted by BirdandCowens[/QUOTE]

    You moaning about anyone that dosent agree with you....tiresome.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUMcHale. Show RUMcHale's posts

    Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m

    In Response to Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m : You stalking me - boring. I can have great conversations with people who disagree with me.  It's those that don't belong in the conversation at all that tick me off!
    Posted by BirdandCowens[/QUOTE]

    Best you don't reply to my posts anymore. I'll gladly do likewise...not that you contribute any cerebral discussion so I won't miss anything!
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from vertmont. Show vertmont's posts

    Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m

    Cause he deserves it. PP has done what it takes and more. A true Celtic.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from P34. Show P34's posts

    Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m

    In Response to Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m : The old IF argument.........tiresome.
    Posted by RUMcHale[/QUOTE]

    The truth hurts, doesn't it? Cool
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUMcHale. Show RUMcHale's posts

    Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m

    In Response to Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m : The truth hurts, doesn't it? 
    Posted by P34[/QUOTE]

    IF it was the truth! Such is life. Muahahahahaha.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BirdandCowens. Show BirdandCowens's posts

    Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m

    In Response to Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m : Best you don't reply to my posts anymore. I'll gladly do likewise...not that you contribute any cerebral discussion so I won't miss anything!
    Posted by RUMcHale[/QUOTE]

    No deal, sorry.  You don't belong here and I doubt you even know the meaning of the word cerebral, since you think the West Coast includes Houston, Dallas and Utah!
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from bilalkazmi. Show bilalkazmi's posts

    Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m

    In Response to Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m:
    [QUOTE]The problem is Pierce has been paid franchise money when he was never a franchise player. He was good enough to be Robin to a true Batman but unfortunately Celtic management never recognized that. It was only the addition of KG that got the Celtics over the line. Alas, Pierce will end up costing the Celtics a chance to re-build with younger, better players but the decision has been made so lets roll the dice.
    Posted by RUMcHale[/QUOTE]

    You say Pierce was never a franchise player.  I find that statement inaccurate. 
    Kobe is a great player and he has won 5 championship rings, but all 5 years that he won he was placed in the best situation in the NBA.  The one year that Pierce won the ring, he was placed in the best situation.

    This "franchise player" label that we speak about has more to do with branding, marketing and hype than anything else.  Allen Iversion has won 0 rings, but he would be considered a franchise player.  Lebron has won 0 rings, but he would be considered a franchise player.  Paul Pierce who has won 1 ring, will not be considered franchise player by most.  Why?  Because collectively, the NBA, the media, and companies in the US spent more money hyping up Allen Iversion, and Lebron compared to Pierce.  Thats it!

    In 2008 when Boston won the championship, Paul Pierce was presented with the MVP trophy.  And rightly so.  He went head-to-head against Lebron James and Kobe Bryant, and most experts believed (even before the results of the series were final) that Pierce outplayed both.

    So, if Pierce had the ability to outplay those two (believed to be the 2 best in the NBA that year) then why is it that he couldn't be considered a franchise player.  To me it seems ridiculous.

    The whole concept of "franchise player" is deeply rooted in this capitalistic economy's desire to ride the coat-tails of marketable athletes.

    As fans of basketball, and students of the game, he shouldn't worry about "who is a franchise player? and who isn't?"  This talk is stupid.  We should worry about whether an athelete can will his team to victory, and in this count both Kobe and Pierce fit the bill.  And in my mind, pretty equally. 
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from bilalkazmi. Show bilalkazmi's posts

    Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m

    In Response to Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m : Pierce was never a franchise player. Name one franchise player that had Bostons record in 2007 (24-58)? Pierce was a strong no#2 but just like management they thought he was the next coming of Bird. It's only when we got a true franchise player in KG that the Celts became a force again.
    Posted by RUMcHale[/QUOTE]

    Did it occur to you that we were trying to tank to land Oden?  If you were paying attention, you would have also realized the Pierce was injured through a significant portion of the season.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from TeamUmbutu. Show TeamUmbutu's posts

    Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m

    Too many people want to classify these guys as one, two, and three. The "truth" is that they are all number ones and accept their current roles to win games. It does not get too much better than that.

    Congratulations to Paul.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from cole-ely. Show cole-ely's posts

    Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m

    There have been only four years when PP didn't play to "franchise player" level.

    His first and second year.

    The year he was hurt midseason.

    Last year.

    I can't belive we're even debating it.  Look at the team he and walker carried to the ecf.  At that time he was already better than, say, Iverson.  Look how he played in his championship run. 
     
  16. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m

    How many championships did Iverson win? Enough said!
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from nightrider495. Show nightrider495's posts

    Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m

    In Response to Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m : Pierce was never a franchise player. Name one franchise player that had Bostons record in 2007 (24-58)? Pierce was a strong no#2 but just like management they thought he was the next coming of Bird. It's only when we got a true franchise player in KG that the Celts became a force again.
    Posted by RUMcHale[/QUOTE]

    I guess that you just didn't get what I was saying, so let me say it again. ANY player, I don't care who they are, would not be winning crap with the earlier teams that Pierce had. Now, Garnett may be a better LEADER than Pierce yes, but what did he even win when he was with a less than spectacular cast in Minnesota? I regard both Garnett and Pierce as franchise players. Both are mutiple all stars. Name me a franchise player that won a title without help...
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from TeamUmbutu. Show TeamUmbutu's posts

    Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m

    Pierce KG and Allen have all been franchise players. They have learned to play together now with winning as the primary goal, and not individual stardom.

    Here are career statistics for the big three from NBAreference.com, an impartial source.

     KGPPRA
    First team all-NBA  2 as SF & 2 at PF  
    Second team all-NBA1 at SF & 1 at PF1 at SF1 at SG
    Third team all-NBA1 at PF3 at SF1 at SG
    First team all star12  
    Reserve team all star189
    League MVPs1  
    All Star MVPs1  
    NBA Finals MVPs 1 
    All defensive First Team8  
    All defensive Second and Third Team2  
    Defensive player of the year1  
    Clutch shooting rank

    3 on the Cs

    2 on the Cs1 on the Cs
    Average Points per game career19.822.520.5
    Average Rebounds per game career10.86.14.3
    Average assists per game career4.23.83.7
    Steals per game career1.31.51.2
    Blocks per game career1.60.60.2
    Hall of fame chance as listed by NBA reference.com99.8%96.4%92.2%
    Best years2004- league MVP24.2 points per game, 13.9 rebounds per game5 assists per game 2008  NBA Champion and defensive player of the year 2006-26.8 points per game 2008 NBA Champion and finals MVP2007-26.4 points per game 2008 2008 NBA Champion Clutch shooting  is key.


    While most other teams fans focus on Batman or robin, The C's have atleast three Batmen, maybe four.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUMcHale. Show RUMcHale's posts

    Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m

    In Response to Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m : I guess that you just didn't get what I was saying, so let me say it again. ANY player, I don't care who they are, would not be winning crap with the earlier teams that Pierce had. Now, Garnett may be a better LEADER than Pierce yes, but what did he even win when he was with a less than spectacular cast in Minnesota? I regard both Garnett and Pierce as franchise players. Both are mutiple all stars. Name me a franchise player that won a title without help...
    Posted by nightrider495[/QUOTE]

    You just replied you your own post. Because Pierce is not a top drawer player he was unable to attract quality players to the Celtic organization like say a Shaq used to, Kobe, Magic and Bird etc. Pierce spent his whole career in Boston and who did we get? Stiffs! Oh, before you reply KG the truth of the matter is it wasn't Pierce that got KG into town. But that's a whole new story but I'll give you a clue....my name sake!
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BirdandCowens. Show BirdandCowens's posts

    Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m

    In Response to Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m : You just replied you your own post. Because Pierce is not a top drawer player he was unable to attract quality players to the Celtic organization like say a Shaq used to, Kobe, Magic and Bird etc. Pierce spent his whole career in Boston and who did we get? Stiffs! Oh, before you reply KG the truth of the matter is it wasn't Pierce that got KG into town. But that's a whole new story but I'll give you a clue....my name sake!
    Posted by RUMcHale[/QUOTE]

    kobeismrnba was responsible for KG?  That's like saying West was responsible for Gasol.  So, show your true colors here, green, and say the following:
    the lakers stole Gasol from Memphis because of West
     We won fair and square in 08 and probably would have won again in 09 if KG didn't get hurt.................c'mon, a true CELTICS fan would have no problem saying those things!
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Give-in-to-it. Show Give-in-to-it's posts

    Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m

    In Response to Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m : kobeismrnba was responsible for KG?  That's like saying West was responsible for Gasol.  So, show your true colors here, green, and say the following: the lakers stole Gasol from Memphis because of West  We won fair and square in 08 and probably would have won again in 09 if KG didn't get hurt.................c'mon, a true CELTICS fan would have no problem saying those things!
    Posted by BirdandCowens[/QUOTE]

    You Celtics guys just crack me up. Supposedly, Jerry West, who wasn't even associated with Memphis in any way, gave the Lakers the opportunity to "steal" Gasol. Never mind the fact that an ex Celtic, Chris Wallace, was the GM that made that trade. McHale on the other hand, handed Garnett to the Celtics, and left Minnesota a barren wasteland of which they have yet to recover. 

    Meanwhile the Grizzlies, who were most interested in expiring contracts have become a better team than they were before the trade. Mr. Wallace still has his job in Memphis, amazing for a guy who allowed a player of Gasol's ability to be high jacked away, or stolen as you apparently believe. It takes a biased perspective of enormous dimensions to not see that kind of insanity.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from P34. Show P34's posts

    Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m

    In Response to Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m : You Celtics guys just crack me up. Supposedly West, who wasn't even associated with the Memphis in any way, gave the Lakers the opportunity to "steal" Gasol. Never mind the fact that an ex Celtic, Chris Wallace, was the GM that made that trade. McHale on the other hand handed Garnett to the Celtics, and left Minnesota a barren wasteland. Meanwhile the Grizzlies, who were most interested in expiring contracts have become a better team than they were before the trade. It takes a biased perspective of enormous dimensions to not see that kind of insanity.
    Posted by Give-in-to-it[/QUOTE]

    You forgot to mention that Jerry West is a very close friend of Michael Heisley, the owner of the Grizzlies. Cool
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUMcHale. Show RUMcHale's posts

    Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m

    In Response to Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m : You Celtics guys just crack me up. Supposedly West, who wasn't even associated with the Memphis in any way, gave the Lakers the opportunity to "steal" Gasol. Never mind the fact that an ex Celtic, Chris Wallace, was the GM that made that trade. McHale on the other hand handed Garnett to the Celtics, and left Minnesota a barren wasteland. Meanwhile the Grizzlies, who were most interested in expiring contracts have become a better team than they were before the trade. Mr. Wallace still has his job in Memphis, amazing for a guy who allowed a player of Gasol's ability to be high jacked away, or stolen as you apparently believe. It takes a biased perspective of enormous dimensions to not see that kind of insanity.
    Posted by Give-in-to-it[/QUOTE]

    I'm of a belief that McHale 'gave' KG away to the Celtics primarily because I think at the time KG expressed a desire to play in L.A with Kobe. McHale was still green to the core and railroaded this by setting up a deal with Boston. As for the Gasol deal, it would appear that the Grizz have come out of it ok. There in a far better position than the TWolves.

    Such is life!
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Give-in-to-it. Show Give-in-to-it's posts

    Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m

    In Response to Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why Pierce Got the 61m : You forgot to mention that Jerry West is a very close friend of Michael Heisley, the owner of the Grizzlies. 
    Posted by P34[/QUOTE]

    Insanity, that is what this line of thinking is. There are friendships all over the NBA, it doesn't mean people sabotage their own teams over them. All you have is an insane theory that makes no sense, with absolutely nothing in regard to proof. 
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share