Why? To perhaps play ten minutes per game, at best? We can always sign a free agent that matches Ratliff's projected production for the minimum. If Ratliff fails his physical, we are more likley to acquire a proven talent like Camby, Foster, Gasol, even Garnett than if he plays.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Premier)</div><div class='quotemain'>Why? To perhaps play ten minutes per game, at best? We can always sign a free agent that matches Ratliff's projected production for the minimum. If Ratliff fails his physical, we are more likley to acquire a proven talent like Camby, Foster, Gasol, even Garnett than if he plays.</div></p> No, there are no free agents out there right now that can match what a relatively healthy Theo Ratliff can bring. He's the veteran defensive presence we need, if he can stay healthy. The two biggest holes on this team are a veteran backup center and a veteran backup point guard. If Theo can stay relatively healthy and play 15-20 minutes per night, maybe not all 82 games but make contributions, then that takes care of one need in the short-term.</p> We are got going to get Gasol, we are got going to get Garnett, especially Garnett without giving up Al Jefferson. Camby is also a long-shot and unlikely. Jeff Foster, I like him a lot, but a healthy Theo Ratliff can provide the same thing, except more experience and an expiring deal.</p>
[quote name='CelticBalla32']No, there are no free agents out there right now that can match what a relatively healthy Theo Ratliff can bring.[/quote]1. Define "a relatively healthy Theo Ratliff," please. Are you implying that Ratliff is completely healthy or even close to his former self? Are you implying that if Ratliff was "relatively healthy" he would somehow revert back to the player he was once back in the '00-'01 season? Are you saying that if Ratliff was healthy he would produce similar numbers to his last "healthy" season in '03-'04 [7.9 points, 7.2 rebounds, 3.6 blocks, 48.5 eFG%, 13.3 rebound rate, 14.4 PER in 31.3 minutes per game] despite Ratliff's four year age increase? Or was his last healthy season in '04-'05 when he produced a measly 4.8 points, 5.3 rebounds, 2.5 blocks, 44.7 eFG%, 11.0 rebound rate, 10.1 PER in 27.5 minutes per game? The fact is that Ratliff has been steadily declining due to injuries, age, and regression of talent. He's turning 35 this season. In my opinion, he will be lucky to pass his physical even. Back surgery is no joke, you know. If he does make the team, I doubt he produces anything more than around two to four points, three to five rebounds, and one to two blocks in each contest, averaging ten to twelve minutes, as he's behind Perkins [24], Jefferson [34], and Gomes [28] in the depth chart, leaving only ten minutes for him that should go to Leon Powe, not Ratliff. 2. Free agents that will sign for the minimum that are more talented and have a greater projected production level than Ratliff include, in my opinion, Jake Tsakalidis, Brian Skinner, Melvin Ely, even Michael Sweetney.</p> That if is equivalent to the size of Antoine Walker's head [ ]. Perkins is a better interior defender at this point. Also, the Celtics are in need of a big man that can defend the pick and roll and guard perimeter power forwards; not a shot-blocker that cannot jump anymore.</p> I disagree. The two glaring weaknesses are starting point guard, starting power forward [Al Jefferson slides to center where he is more effective]. The remaining roster weaknesses include a defensive-minded wing player off the bench [Tony Allen is unable to play small forward like he did in college and his athleticism will be non-existent due to his torn ACL, rendering him useless] and a competent head coach, of course [Danny can go too].</p> I like how you are being a realist, but Ratliff's contract is the biggest draw in a Gasol trade, which would include Green, a protected '08 first, and cash considerations alongisde Ratliff. Memphis is in a poor situation financially since the ownership change is taking ages. Also, I would definitely trade Jefferson to obtain Garnett, who puts the Celtics in championship contention. The deadline always results in lop-sided trades. Denver is trying to sell Camby [remember the Kwame Brown offer?] and can use the extra money, especially when Camby is not vital to the team's success. Foster is a much better defender, rebounder, scorer, and possibly shot-blocker than Ratliff. If you would like to debate this, save yourself some time and check out basketball-reference. </p>
Getting rid of Wally was a must! He sucks. The Celts can at least consider moving Pierce if he plays well (still overpriced), and Tony Allen can slip in and play the 3. Rondo will be good. He's a great slasher and a super ball hawk. And there's enough ball handling b/w Allen and Pierce to protect Rondo in the half court. Getting a good defensive center would help but Perkins is not bad, he's just an offensive liability. For no reason should the Celts move Jefferson. He will become a superstar (his stats for the second half of the season match favorably with any power forward in the league).</p> </p> The Celts weren't as bad as their record last year. They have a ton of young talent and Pierce played hurt for most of the season. Allen's shooting ability and FT% will win the Celts a lot of those close games this year. But can the refs be counted on?</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticBalla32)</div><div class='quotemain'>Theo's contract is more valuable than you're making it out to have, in my opinion. When a team wants to cut salary and/or avoid luxury tax land in the coming years, bringing on an expiring $12 million deal is a big help.</div></p> Theo can't help teams dodge the luxury tax if he's playing. If he's playing he's basically the least valuable expiring contract in the league (because why deal for Ratliff who has nothing to offer when you can deal for Jamison?). The Celtics need him to fail that physical so that he remains a sought after property.</p> </p> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (achoopdog)</div><div class='quotemain'><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #3a3d42; font-family: verdana; font-size: 11px">The Celts weren't as bad as their record last year. They have a ton of young talent and Pierce played hurt for most of the season. Allen's shooting ability and FT% will win the Celts a lot of those close games this year. But can the refs be counted on?</div></span></p> </p> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #3a3d42; font-family: verdana; font-size: 11px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana">The refs weren't to blame for the 4-31 record sans Pierce. They don't have a "ton of young talent" they have a "ton of young players"<font color="#999999">.</font> There's a difference. Garnett takes this team to the next level, as of now they're a low seed/one and done team. Here's hoping the front office realises this and rolls the dice. </span></span></p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ehmunro)</div><div class='quotemain'> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px; color: #3a3d42; font-family: verdana; border-collapse: collapse"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana">The refs weren't to blame for the 4-31 record sans Pierce. They don't have a "ton of young talent" they have a "ton of young <font color="#000000">players</font>". There's a difference. Garnett takes this team to the next level, as of now they're a low seed/one and done team. Here's hoping the front office realises this and rolls the dice. </span></span></p> </div></p> oh good golly, that almost sounds like a celtic fan who doesn't have his head up in the clouds over this fiasco of a team.</p> I am not alone!</p>
Ray Allen is a class act, and currently a studly player. He's going to be good to have around, even after his career is through.</p> My $.02</p> </p>
[Insert deity of choice], I'm good. Missed the inclusion of Gomes and it was a '09 first, not '08 protected (also, my comments about Rondo may or may not be true), but two days before the trade, I basically got it right. That is all. In fact, this entire thread is a gem.
...until KG shot down the deal, after Minnesota made an outrageous addition to the offer, in which case it became was dead, only to resurface on the 31st. The original deal was Jefferson, the fifth selection in the '07 draft, Minnesota's future first, Theo Ratliff, and Wally Szczerbiak for Kevin Garnett and either Troy Hudson or Trenton Hassell. Then, on the 21st of June (three days after the first report), the deal hit a snag when McHale requested Gerald Green in exchange for Marko Jaric's awful contract. Ainge refused and then Garnett, through his agent, said he was unwilling to sign an extension with the Celtics, thus voiding any chance of the deal. I mean, this is pretty much the most direct way of saying that the deal was dead: By the 27th, Garnett was on the verge of being traded to Phoenix. Then, the Ray Allen trade happened. Until the 31st there was no rumors of Garnett changing his mind, but there was a small contingent of the fanbase, myself included, who thought that the Celtics should just ignore KG's apparent unwillingness to sign a long-term extension and just roll the dice, hoping that once he started winning, he would be more inclined to remaining in Boston. The Ray Allen trade, it turns out, was the key, but outside of the involved parties and the in-the-know reporters, the consensus was that the Garnett trade was dead (which, in turn, resulted in many reporters bemoaning the fact that Ainge made the Ray Allen trade, who was coming off an injury-plauged season due to bone spurs. However, Ainge knew at the time that the first trade was the key to the second, even though it downgraded the Celtics' offer due to the fifth selection's inclusion in the Shuttlesworth trade and not the subsequent KG trade). This notion that the Celtics were no longer in contention for Garnett was common, springing comments including CB32's 7/29 post: "we are not going to get Garnett..." Therefore, yes, the KG to Boston rumor had been going on for weeks (about six), but it was effectively dead only to be revived two days after my post (to give credit, others including E.H. had similar thoughts).
I know you didn't ask me, but he's more competent than lucky. People underestimate the cycle he's gone through since taking over. He took over an atrocious roster talent-wise, and it was even uglier salary-wise. He wanted to go into full blown rebuild mode, but the new owners forced him to stay as competitive as possible. In only a couple years, he took a team that had no future and turned it into one full of young, promising players that could either a) develop together into a playoff team b) make very attractive trade offers for the big names that hit the trade market. A lot of GMs try to do what he did and fail miserably. People joke about how McHale gave KG away to Ainge, but you have to remember that when he hit the market, the Celtics were the team that could put together the best package (and retain their 2 superstar players, to boot). And even when KG initially refused a deal to Boston, McHale still couldn't find anything as attractive as the Celtics offer. Ainge put himself in positon to get KG with his drafting, player developmental system and working with a coach that was willing to showcase young talent, even if it meant losing a few extra games.
But could you say it was inevitable the Celtics would have those assets as a result of their struggles the past few years prior to their championship? Isiah Thomas had similar assets once. In fact, there was a time he had $30M in expiring contracts and several attractive young prospects: Frye (he had a good rookie year), Nate, Lee, and Ariza. Unfortunately KG was not available at that time. But an offer of the above is very much comparable to what the Celtics gave up. So if the Knicks got KG in that deal, while I don’t think they would have won a championship, they would have been a much better team. Definitely in the playoffs. But that wouldn’t make Isiah anymore of a competent GM.
