http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/ce...e_a_green_team/ <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">You run into Celtics fans on the street and a lot of them tell you this: At least there's hope now. Maybe there is. But players aren't savings bonds. Go back and find one team that has had an extensive number of draft picks, seen them mature together, and become a championship-level team. It doesn't happen. If it did, the Clippers would be the dynasty in Los Angeles</div> Interesting article by Peter May in the Globe today. Im not sure I agree with his pessimism but he doesnt state anything that is really refuteable. I think the quote above here is probably the best point that he makes. Are the Celtics DOOMED to be the next LA CLippers? I pray not but you have to at least listen when May speaks as he is the head basketball writer at the boston globe which none of us can claim
Honestly, has Peter May ever been optimistic? I can't stand him at all. Steve Bulpett is my favorite Celtics writer (besides Ignignot), and he offered up a piece that is almost the exact opposite to May's. http://celtics.bostonherald.com/celtics/vi...065&format=text
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting olskoolFunktitude:</div><div class="quote_post">http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/ce...e_a_green_team/ Interesting article by Peter May in the Globe today. Im not sure I agree with his pessimism but he doesnt state anything that is really refuteable. I think the quote above here is probably the best point that he makes. Are the Celtics DOOMED to be the next LA CLippers? I pray not but you have to at least listen when May speaks as he is the head basketball writer at the boston globe which none of us can claim</div> Granted, rarely do players come along and win championships and grow together, but I have two names for you: Tom Heinsohn and Bill Russell... End of argument.
End of arguement? not really...I--I'm not even sure that youre making a valid point. Tom Heinson and Bill Russel played in a completely different era of the NBA and pro sports in general. Teams actually got the chance to develop TEAMS because players wernt moving around at such a shokcing rate as they are now. Good article by Bullpett. I think I may start listening to him instead of May even if he does write for a tabloid-esque JOKE of a newspaper. at least hes upbeat
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting olskoolFunktitude:</div><div class="quote_post">End of arguement? not really...I--I'm not even sure that youre making a valid point. Tom Heinson and Bill Russel played in a completely different era of the NBA and pro sports in general. Teams actually got the chance to develop TEAMS because players wernt moving around at such a shokcing rate as they are now. Good article by Bullpett. I think I may start listening to him instead of May even if he does write for a tabloid-esque JOKE of a newspaper. at least hes upbeat</div> Fair enough, I was only speaking of times when rookies got to develop together and win titles. That was May's argument, no? Throw a young Frank Ramsey into that lineup, and that makes for a quite a younthful core of players. But I relent, and admit that yes, that was a totally different era. Nevertheless, May has no right to deny C's fans the pleasure of seeing a talented a young core of exciting players. I think any C's fan I know of is cautiously optimistic as it is, because we've been in this situation before. Lots of question marks, lots of up and down moments in the past couple of years, and lots upon lots of young talent. But let's be honest, our youth movements in the past have worked out well. The core of those 80's teams came along at just the right time, while those players developed together. Bird, McHale, Parish, and a veteran DJ made those teams great, and they worked together nicely. Parish wasn't developed, Bird was real young, and McHale was too, throw in a seasoned and intelligent one in DJ, and that's quite a mix. That lineup in '57 was a doozy and again, a seasoned (if not best ever) one to go with a young group with lots of potential underneath. And bam, we're talking eight straight titles. Nevertheless, cautiously optimistic or no, May seems to have accounted for only half the story with the C's. Yes, any time you rely on potential to run your team it's a problem, but any time you rely on athleticism to get you wins, it's a very good thing. In the history of the C's organization, there have been almost no titles without a decent running game. The best of the C's greats played on them back in the day, and even as recently as Bird's teams of the 80's. But then again, all the winners were running teams in the 80's. The NBA has moved away from a running format for whatever reason, and as a result, the returning athletic, running teams have been successful (I'm looking in NJ's direction), and while the most notable of those teams hasn't yet won a title using that style of play, they have gotten close and stalled against juggernauts. The Spurs may think they are an answer to those athletic squads, but it's a matter of time before the pendulum once again heads the other direction and athleticism beats half court, stalling, fits and starts type offense. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, the defensive-minded coaching of the Spurs and Pistons of the past couple years cannot last. The reason being that, barring more seven game finals, few people enjoy watching the style of play. The NBA is always looking to make its image more flashy and offensive-minded, so the inevitability of the glamorous running game won't be held up by them. The Association has been making rules changes every years for years on end to stall the progress of defensive teams (save the instituting of zones) and will continue to. This is not conspiracy theory, it's just a fact, and I think it's an encouraging one. The league would like to see the popularity of its glory days return, and the only way to do that is cut down on the half court style of play and open up the floor for scorers. They've been working on it, and it serves only to benefit teams like the Celtics. And let May have his doubts, we all do, we all have questions that won't be answered for months yet, so let's discuss. But in this case, history doesn't serve his purpose too tremendously well, recent history maybe, but we've seen teams all over sports defy the salary-cap era restrictions and complications to make winners. Why not this one? We can only wait and see. I just think it's easier to look at this team with rose-colored glasses and say that potential is a better thing to have than the hopelessness that has marked this era for the C's. I would love to see this team grow and win together, and I don't see a reason why they can't. It isn't like we have a tremendously pressing salary cap problem, a la the Knicks, and it's not like we have an inept coaching staff or management team, a la the Warriors, Raptors, Clippers, or Hawks, whom are all in positions now that we've found ourselves in in the past ten years. So I see no reason to think that we'll have a subpar team this year, nor do I see any reason to think we can't build a winner in two to three years time.
And what notable news source in this day and age isn't a tabloid-esque joke a news source? Everywhere one looks it's all gloom and doom, with concern about where the next rich person is going to eat lunch in their city. Or who will save humanity from itself by having a marketable idea. Or when the next fad diet will hit. It's all the same. Television says the same thing as radio, that says the same thing as the print media, that says the same thing as the internet new sources. Let's just move past this now. You want to talk about shifting eras, the journalistic era of our times is one of the saddest ones in America, ever. The playing field is perfectly level, and no one source is better than another, they all write their sensationalist tripe day after day, and nobody seems willing to break the cycle. Just a fact of life America has come to deal with. I mean look at us, for God's sake. Their are many people that bring news to the people of this site, and we discuss it and we have fun doing it. No one profits from any of it, and still we get news out there in a fun and meaningful way. We don't shout eachother down, and we certainly don't compete for one story to outshine another. Nor do we worry about what leads or what doesn't. I love this medium and wish that more people enjoyed it as much as I do. But hey, I'm not complaining about that, because if more people did this for more forms of news, it'd all cost ridiculous amounts of money to pull off, and would be infected with advertisers and agendas and heresay. So I'll just take what I got. P.S. Sorry about the tangent, I guess I feel somewhat strongly about the issue.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Ignignot:</div><div class="quote_post"> The core of those 80's teams came along at just the right time, while those players developed together. Bird, McHale, Parish, and a veteran DJ made those teams great, and they worked together nicely. Parish wasn't developed, Bird was real young, and McHale was too, throw in a seasoned and intelligent one in DJ, and that's quite a mix. </div> one big difference. Those teams had Larry Bird. This team doesn't. Closest thing they have is Paul Pierce. Pierce is a great player. Has the same kind of character as Larry Bird. But hes no Larry Bird. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> any time you rely on athleticism to get you wins, it's a very good thing. </div> u said it yourself. NJ hasnt won a title. Neither has Phoenix. San Antonio has one 3 of them and counting. You can say all you want about how it cant last forever or how the league knows that their ratings will get worse and worse until they change the league so that offense and athleticism can win (and on that point a strongly agree with you) but untill they actually do something about it, untill they outlaw zone defense, and untill a team like phoenix or new jersey beats a team like detroit or san antonio in the FINALS its all wishy washy theorizing. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> It isn't like we have a tremendously pressing salary cap problem,</div> 2 words for you: Blount and Lafreanz. when was the last time you heard the words "the celtics are in a GREAT cap situation and have plenty of money available to shore up on free agent talent! as for the tangeant about news publications, yeah News today onverall is kind of sketchy, especially TV news. a lot of propaganda and a lot of manipulation of the public. but the fact remains New York Times: still a reasonably respectable news source Boston Globe: still a reasonably respectable news source Boston Herald: nope Justbball.com and other sites like this: NOT a reliable news source. y'know why? coz at sites like these any dunce (liike me ) can report any rediculous thing they want with NO accountability. No ones ever been banned from a message board for lying. If they were, sites like these would have about 12 active members in total
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting olskoolFunktitude:</div><div class="quote_post">u said it yourself. NJ hasnt won a title. Neither has Phoenix. San Antonio has one 3 of them and counting.</div> What I also said myself was a brief rundown of the history of athletic basketball in the C's organization, which has been nothing but positive. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting olskoolFunktitude:</div><div class="quote_post">2 words for you: Blount and Lafreanz. when was the last time you heard the words "the celtics are in a GREAT cap situation and have plenty of money available to shore up on free agent talent!</div> First of all, yes, we all agree that Blount is terrible, but $5 mill does not a pressing cap issue make. Raef's $9 mill is steep, but to supplant a front court game like we had, with his deal? I'll take it. So, once again, not a terribly pressing cap issue, not until this last round of rookie contracts come up in two to three years. We're not talking a Knicks disaster here, just a minor inconvenience.
