<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate)</div><div class='quotemain'> No baggage, just calling it like I see it. </p> </p> Don't tell me what to do. </p></div>Grow up. "No baggage?" What the hell does that mean? You're referring entirely to posts and exchanges made on an entirely separate board. If that doesn't constitute "baggage," I don't know what is. Regardless, why does supporting your own team's decisions and management prevent you from being critical of other teams? That's just an idiotic position, and I expect better from you. NetIncome makes some fair points. If this board is merely going to devolve into lobbing insults and a refusal to credit opinions by posters that express opinions you don't like, then I see no reason why I should choose it over the other one.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate)</div><div class='quotemain'> No baggage, just calling it like I see it. </p> </p> Don't tell me what to do. </p> </div>Grow up. "No baggage?" What the hell does that mean? You're referring entirely to posts and exchanges made on an entirely separate board. If that doesn't constitute "baggage," I don't know what is. Regardless, why does supporting your own team's decisions and management prevent you from being critical of other teams? That's just an idiotic position, and I expect better from you. NetIncome makes some fair points. If this board is merely going to devolve into lobbing insults and a refusal to credit opinions by posters that express opinions you don't like, then I see no reason why I should choose it over the other one.</div> No, he didn't make any fair or reasonable points.</p> There is difference between supporting your team and blindly swallowing everything their PR department puts out. Honesty requires applying the same standards to how you evaluate the ownership & management of your team and the ownership & management of other teams. Blind homerism doesn't have a place.</p>
Am I supposed to erase my opinion of someone? It's not like this board means it's a fresh start for all. Most of us still 'know' each other, and have opinions. </p> Refusal to credit opinions by posters that express opinions you don't like?</p> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NetIncome)</div><div class='quotemain'>I see we are in denial here.</div></p> What do you call that? </p> </p> I don't see why you are coming at me telling me to leave my baggage behind, but will continue to allow some to act like a jackass, no matter what. No one gets preferential treatment, you make a good point, I'll call that. You act like a jackass, I'll call that. You make a dumb point, I'll argue.</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'> Stop getting off topic. This is about the Celtics, not the Nets and what Ratner may or may not do. There's no need to bait or ridicule NetIncome. Save that for the other board; I'm surprised that the two of you felt the need to bring your baggage with your user names when you migrated here.</p> </p> <>As far as I'm concerned, my reaction to the Celtics is basically: Show me the money. And I don't mean the money to pay any luxury tax; I mean the players that are at least NBA-average contributors off the bench. I'll give you Tony Allen, although the jury has to be out until we see how well he performs with his reconstructed knee. Those other guys may have one or two redeeming qualities each, but overall they are a pathetic group of below-average players with little or no potential. Net Income is correct--even a Seton Hall grad can look at a roster and correctly count up the number of names--but Manual and Wallace could easily be pushed aside if there are any larger signings. Again: Show me the money. Pollard is equivalent to a guy like Cliff Robinson as far as I'm concerned. The missing part to a championship run? Hardly.</div>There is no baggage Dumpy, there is only a quest for honesty. The Celtics have said they will pay the luxury tax and how much they expect to spend. Prem has calculated for everyone what that means in terms of additional salary ownership is willing to add. </p> Anyone attempting to draw conclusions from this move and the House signing is being an idiot. The Celtics have had 1 week to obtain Free Agents for this roster and the roster doesn't have to be at 15 for quite some time.</p> You are the one that is attempting to defend the indefensible </p> </p> </div></p> What I do is treat all posters and posts with the same amount of respect. Other than that, you are incorrect in your analysis of what I am "attempting" to do.</p> Your point is a little logically inconsistent. You say, "Anyone attempting to draw conclusions from this move and the House signing is being an idiot. The Celtics have had 1 week to obtain Free Agents for this roster and the roster doesn't have to be at 15 for quite some time." The fact that, as you say, the Celtics do not have to be at 15 players for "some time," yet chose to sign Pollard and House within days of making the Garnett acquisition, DOES speak towards their intent to complete the roster as quickly as possible (unless they thought that these guys would have gotten away had they not acted swiftly, which may be debatable with regard to House). I believe that the better response is to point out that neither Wallace nor Manual have guarranteed contracts, and so their deals should not be counted against the roster limit at this point, any more than Hite should be counted against the Nets'. Thus, the Celtics really only have 12 players under contract by any count, with two or three additional slots to fill. Of course, as the only poster in all of NetsWorld that treats all posters with respect, I guess I shouldn't expect any one else to share that position. </p>
Back on topic.</p> Dumpy, why do you think the Nets' bench is significantly better than the Celtics' bench? </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'> Stop getting off topic. This is about the Celtics, not the Nets and what Ratner may or may not do. There's no need to bait or ridicule NetIncome. Save that for the other board; I'm surprised that the two of you felt the need to bring your baggage with your user names when you migrated here.</p> </p> <>As far as I'm concerned, my reaction to the Celtics is basically: Show me the money. And I don't mean the money to pay any luxury tax; I mean the players that are at least NBA-average contributors off the bench. I'll give you Tony Allen, although the jury has to be out until we see how well he performs with his reconstructed knee. Those other guys may have one or two redeeming qualities each, but overall they are a pathetic group of below-average players with little or no potential. Net Income is correct--even a Seton Hall grad can look at a roster and correctly count up the number of names--but Manual and Wallace could easily be pushed aside if there are any larger signings. Again: Show me the money. Pollard is equivalent to a guy like Cliff Robinson as far as I'm concerned. The missing part to a championship run? Hardly.</div>There is no baggage Dumpy, there is only a quest for honesty. The Celtics have said they will pay the luxury tax and how much they expect to spend. Prem has calculated for everyone what that means in terms of additional salary ownership is willing to add. </p> Anyone attempting to draw conclusions from this move and the House signing is being an idiot. The Celtics have had 1 week to obtain Free Agents for this roster and the roster doesn't have to be at 15 for quite some time.</p> You are the one that is attempting to defend the indefensible </p> </p> </div></p> </p> What I do is treat all posters and posts with the same amount of respect. Other than that, you are incorrect in your analysis of what I am "attempting" to do. </p> Your point is a little logically inconsistent. You say, "Anyone attempting to draw conclusions from this move and the House signing is being an idiot. The Celtics have had 1 week to obtain Free Agents for this roster and the roster doesn't have to be at 15 for quite some time." The fact that, as you say, the Celtics do not have to be at 15 players for "some time," yet chose to sign Pollard and House within days of making the Garnett acquisition, DOES speak towards their intent to complete the roster as quickly as possible (unless they thought that these guys would have gotten away had they not acted swiftly, which may be debatable with regard to House). I believe that the better response is to point out that neither Wallace nor Manual have guarranteed contracts, and so their deals should not be counted against the roster limit at this point, any more than Hite should be counted against the Nets'. Thus, the Celtics really only have 12 players under contract by any count, with two or three additional slots to fill. Of course, as the only poster in all of NetsWorld that treats all posters with respect, I guess I shouldn't expect any one else to share that position. </p> </div></p> </p> Have you ever heard of 'you've got to give respect to get respect?'</p> </p> That's my mantra.</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate)</div><div class='quotemain'> No baggage, just calling it like I see it. </p> </p> Don't tell me what to do. </p> </div>Grow up. "No baggage?" What the hell does that mean? You're referring entirely to posts and exchanges made on an entirely separate board. If that doesn't constitute "baggage," I don't know what is. Regardless, why does supporting your own team's decisions and management prevent you from being critical of other teams? That's just an idiotic position, and I expect better from you. NetIncome makes some fair points. If this board is merely going to devolve into lobbing insults and a refusal to credit opinions by posters that express opinions you don't like, then I see no reason why I should choose it over the other one.</div>No, he didn't make any fair or reasonable points.</p> There is difference between supporting your team and blindly swallowing everything their PR department puts out. Honesty requires applying the same standards to how you evaluate the ownership & management of your team and the ownership & management of other teams. Blind homerism doesn't have a place.</p></div>See, I disagree. He made reasonable points regarding the liklihood that the Celtics will sign additional free agents. Whether you agree or not is irrelevant for this purpose, and the fact that NetIncome has shown blind homerism towards the Nets doesn't make his views regarding the Celtics any less valid. Suporting one team does not negate criticism of another team. You may disagree with his assessment--for instance, you could simply argue that it is irrelevant whether ownership has five billion dollars or one billion dollars when it comes to the likelihood or access to resources needed to pay the luxury tax of a few million dollars--but that doesn't make it less valid.
[quote name='Kid Chocolate'][quote name='Dumpy'][quote name='cpawfan'][quote name='Dumpy'] Stop getting off topic. This is about the Celtics, not the Nets and what Ratner may or may not do. There's no need to bait or ridicule NetIncome. Save that for the other board; I'm surprised that the two of you felt the need to bring your baggage with your user names when you migrated here.</p> </p> <>As far as I'm concerned, my reaction to the Celtics is basically: Show me the money. And I don't mean the money to pay any luxury tax; I mean the players that are at least NBA-average contributors off the bench. I'll give you Tony Allen, although the jury has to be out until we see how well he performs with his reconstructed knee. Those other guys may have one or two redeeming qualities each, but overall they are a pathetic group of below-average players with little or no potential. Net Income is correct--even a Seton Hall grad can look at a roster and correctly count up the number of names--but Manual and Wallace could easily be pushed aside if there are any larger signings. Again: Show me the money. Pollard is equivalent to a guy like Cliff Robinson as far as I'm concerned. The missing part to a championship run? Hardly. [/QUOTE]There is no baggage Dumpy, there is only a quest for honesty. The Celtics have said they will pay the luxury tax and how much they expect to spend. Prem has calculated for everyone what that means in terms of additional salary ownership is willing to add. </p> Anyone attempting to draw conclusions from this move and the House signing is being an idiot. The Celtics have had 1 week to obtain Free Agents for this roster and the roster doesn't have to be at 15 for quite some time.</p> You are the one that is attempting to defend the indefensible </p> </p> [/QUOTE]</p> </p> What I do is treat all posters and posts with the same amount of respect. Other than that, you are incorrect in your analysis of what I am "attempting" to do. </p> Your point is a little logically inconsistent. You say, "Anyone attempting to draw conclusions from this move and the House signing is being an idiot. The Celtics have had 1 week to obtain Free Agents for this roster and the roster doesn't have to be at 15 for quite some time." The fact that, as you say, the Celtics do not have to be at 15 players for "some time," yet chose to sign Pollard and House within days of making the Garnett acquisition, DOES speak towards their intent to complete the roster as quickly as possible (unless they thought that these guys would have gotten away had they not acted swiftly, which may be debatable with regard to House). I believe that the better response is to point out that neither Wallace nor Manual have guarranteed contracts, and so their deals should not be counted against the roster limit at this point, any more than Hite should be counted against the Nets'. Thus, the Celtics really only have 12 players under contract by any count, with two or three additional slots to fill. Of course, as the only poster in all of NetsWorld that treats all posters with respect, I guess I shouldn't expect any one else to share that position. </p> [/QUOTE]</p> </p> Have you ever heard of 'you've got to give respect to get respect?'</p> </p> That's my mantra. </p> [/QUOTE]</p> I'm not sure you know the definitiion of "mantra," but regardless, I believe that you GAIN respect by showing respect, and never deviating from that.</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'> </p> What I do is treat all posters and posts with the same amount of respect. Other than that, you are incorrect in your analysis of what I am "attempting" to do. </p> Your point is a little logically inconsistent. You say, "Anyone attempting to draw conclusions from this move and the House signing is being an idiot. The Celtics have had 1 week to obtain Free Agents for this roster and the roster doesn't have to be at 15 for quite some time." The fact that, as you say, the Celtics do not have to be at 15 players for "some time," yet chose to sign Pollard and House within days of making the Garnett acquisition, DOES speak towards their intent to complete the roster as quickly as possible (unless they thought that these guys would have gotten away had they not acted swiftly, which may be debatable with regard to House). I believe that the better response is to point out that neither Wallace nor Manual have guarranteed contracts, and so their deals should not be counted against the roster limit at this point, any more than Hite should be counted against the Nets'. Thus, the Celtics really only have 12 players under contract by any count, with two or three additional slots to fill. Of course, as the only poster in all of NetsWorld that treats all posters with respect, I guess I shouldn't expect any one else to share that position. </p> </div> No, it speaks to their desire add players to their roster and says nothing about the time frame for completion of the roster. The status of Wallace and Manual shouldn't have to be pointed out, however, in order to respond to dishonest, you had to point it out.</p> </p> I have a greater problem with posters showing a lack of respect to non-Nets fans in this forum than I do with the interaction between the Nets fans. I responded to that lack of respect.</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'>See, I disagree. He made reasonable points regarding the liklihood that the Celtics will sign additional free agents. Whether you agree or not is irrelevant for this purpose, and the fact that NetIncome has shown blind homerism towards the Nets doesn't make his views regarding the Celtics any less valid. Suporting one team does not negate criticism of another team. You may disagree with his assessment--for instance, you could simply argue that it is irrelevant whether ownership has five billion dollars or one billion dollars when it comes to the likelihood or access to resources needed to pay the luxury tax of a few million dollars--but that doesn't make it less valid.</div> The points weren't reasonable and it absolutely makes his views less valid. Blind homerism always impacts one's lens with which they view other teams. There is a huge world of difference between supporting a team and being a blind homer.
[quote name='Dumpy'][quote name='Kid Chocolate'][quote name='Dumpy'][quote name='cpawfan'][quote name='Dumpy'] Stop getting off topic. This is about the Celtics, not the Nets and what Ratner may or may not do. There's no need to bait or ridicule NetIncome. Save that for the other board; I'm surprised that the two of you felt the need to bring your baggage with your user names when you migrated here.</p> </p> <>As far as I'm concerned, my reaction to the Celtics is basically: Show me the money. And I don't mean the money to pay any luxury tax; I mean the players that are at least NBA-average contributors off the bench. I'll give you Tony Allen, although the jury has to be out until we see how well he performs with his reconstructed knee. Those other guys may have one or two redeeming qualities each, but overall they are a pathetic group of below-average players with little or no potential. Net Income is correct--even a Seton Hall grad can look at a roster and correctly count up the number of names--but Manual and Wallace could easily be pushed aside if there are any larger signings. Again: Show me the money. Pollard is equivalent to a guy like Cliff Robinson as far as I'm concerned. The missing part to a championship run? Hardly. [/QUOTE]There is no baggage Dumpy, there is only a quest for honesty. The Celtics have said they will pay the luxury tax and how much they expect to spend. Prem has calculated for everyone what that means in terms of additional salary ownership is willing to add. </p> Anyone attempting to draw conclusions from this move and the House signing is being an idiot. The Celtics have had 1 week to obtain Free Agents for this roster and the roster doesn't have to be at 15 for quite some time.</p> You are the one that is attempting to defend the indefensible </p> </p> [/QUOTE]</p> </p> What I do is treat all posters and posts with the same amount of respect. Other than that, you are incorrect in your analysis of what I am "attempting" to do. </p> Your point is a little logically inconsistent. You say, "Anyone attempting to draw conclusions from this move and the House signing is being an idiot. The Celtics have had 1 week to obtain Free Agents for this roster and the roster doesn't have to be at 15 for quite some time." The fact that, as you say, the Celtics do not have to be at 15 players for "some time," yet chose to sign Pollard and House within days of making the Garnett acquisition, DOES speak towards their intent to complete the roster as quickly as possible (unless they thought that these guys would have gotten away had they not acted swiftly, which may be debatable with regard to House). I believe that the better response is to point out that neither Wallace nor Manual have guarranteed contracts, and so their deals should not be counted against the roster limit at this point, any more than Hite should be counted against the Nets'. Thus, the Celtics really only have 12 players under contract by any count, with two or three additional slots to fill. Of course, as the only poster in all of NetsWorld that treats all posters with respect, I guess I shouldn't expect any one else to share that position. </p> [/QUOTE]</p> </p> Have you ever heard of 'you've got to give respect to get respect?'</p> </p> That's my mantra. </p> [/QUOTE]</p> I'm not sure you know the definitiion of "mantra," but regardless, I believe that you GAIN respect by showing respect, and never deviating from that. </p> [/QUOTE]</p> </p> Mantra: A commonly repeated word or phrase</p> </p> Don't patronize me, I'm not stupid.</p>
[quote name='Kid Chocolate'][quote name='Dumpy'][quote name='Kid Chocolate'][quote name='Dumpy'][quote name='cpawfan'][quote name='Dumpy'] Stop getting off topic. This is about the Celtics, not the Nets and what Ratner may or may not do. There's no need to bait or ridicule NetIncome. Save that for the other board; I'm surprised that the two of you felt the need to bring your baggage with your user names when you migrated here.</p> </p> <>As far as I'm concerned, my reaction to the Celtics is basically: Show me the money. And I don't mean the money to pay any luxury tax; I mean the players that are at least NBA-average contributors off the bench. I'll give you Tony Allen, although the jury has to be out until we see how well he performs with his reconstructed knee. Those other guys may have one or two redeeming qualities each, but overall they are a pathetic group of below-average players with little or no potential. Net Income is correct--even a Seton Hall grad can look at a roster and correctly count up the number of names--but Manual and Wallace could easily be pushed aside if there are any larger signings. Again: Show me the money. Pollard is equivalent to a guy like Cliff Robinson as far as I'm concerned. The missing part to a championship run? Hardly. [/QUOTE]There is no baggage Dumpy, there is only a quest for honesty. The Celtics have said they will pay the luxury tax and how much they expect to spend. Prem has calculated for everyone what that means in terms of additional salary ownership is willing to add. </p> Anyone attempting to draw conclusions from this move and the House signing is being an idiot. The Celtics have had 1 week to obtain Free Agents for this roster and the roster doesn't have to be at 15 for quite some time.</p> You are the one that is attempting to defend the indefensible </p> </p> [/QUOTE]</p> </p> What I do is treat all posters and posts with the same amount of respect. Other than that, you are incorrect in your analysis of what I am "attempting" to do. </p> Your point is a little logically inconsistent. You say, "Anyone attempting to draw conclusions from this move and the House signing is being an idiot. The Celtics have had 1 week to obtain Free Agents for this roster and the roster doesn't have to be at 15 for quite some time." The fact that, as you say, the Celtics do not have to be at 15 players for "some time," yet chose to sign Pollard and House within days of making the Garnett acquisition, DOES speak towards their intent to complete the roster as quickly as possible (unless they thought that these guys would have gotten away had they not acted swiftly, which may be debatable with regard to House). I believe that the better response is to point out that neither Wallace nor Manual have guarranteed contracts, and so their deals should not be counted against the roster limit at this point, any more than Hite should be counted against the Nets'. Thus, the Celtics really only have 12 players under contract by any count, with two or three additional slots to fill. Of course, as the only poster in all of NetsWorld that treats all posters with respect, I guess I shouldn't expect any one else to share that position. </p> [/QUOTE]</p> </p> Have you ever heard of 'you've got to give respect to get respect?'</p> </p> That's my mantra. </p> [/QUOTE]</p> I'm not sure you know the definitiion of "mantra," but regardless, I believe that you GAIN respect by showing respect, and never deviating from that. </p> [/QUOTE]</p> </p> Maybe you're talking to the wrong poster here...</p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Premier)</div><div class='quotemain'> Back on topic.</p> Dumpy, why do you think the Nets' bench is significantly better than the Celtics' bench? </p> </div> Will Rondo be a starter or a member of the bench?</p> Which number in the rotation will Veal be?</p> Do the Celtics have anyone on the bench as good as Nachbar?</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Premier)</div><div class='quotemain'> Back on topic.</p> Dumpy, why do you think the Nets' bench is significantly better than the Celtics' bench? </p> </div>Part of the problem with this debate is that we have mixed starters and reserves somewhat. We've included Rondo and Perkins in the discussion, but by all indications they'll be starters for the Celtics. So either we eliminate them from the discussion, or we include Krstic and either Magloire or Collins. I don't care either way, but to make this simpler, let's eliminate them.</p><>I like Tony Allen. He really produced last season when he was forced into a more prominent role, until he blew out his knee. House is fine, also, but also knowing that he could get injured again. From what I watched last year, it seemed like he at least tried hard on defense--whether he was effective was hard to really say--and I thought he exhibited tremendous ball movement along the perimeter. Those two guys, if healthy, can be legitimate contributors. The jury is still out on the other guys, though. They are a collection of undrafted rookies and veterans that have never produced consistently or have had large roles with a team (at least recently). Powe, Glen Davis, Scalabrine, Wallace, Pollard--these all strike me as players that should be your 10th to 12th players, yet this group includes their first, second, and third bigs off the bench. Maybe Sean Williams isn't better than these guys, maybe Powe and Glen Davis will be as good as Josh Boone (although I still have faith in Boone), I don't know. But the nets still have Magloire and Nachbar. Who knows what Magloire will provide, but he has shown that he can still contribute somewhere around 10 points and 8 rebounds a night if he plays regularly, and I'm not sure that any of the Celtics' guys can do that. And, even if Nachbar turns back into a pumpkin, he's at least shown the ability to put up 20 points on occassion, and stretch the defense with three-point range from the PF position, and I'm not sure any of the Celtics can do that. Yes, his defense kind of sucks, but we haven't exactly seen what Glen Davis and Brandan Wallace will bring on that side of the court, and Pollard has been mostly injured the past few seasons, if I have that correct. I'm willing to call the Wright/Marcus v. Tony Allen/House comparison a draw for the time being, but again, you've got two guys coming off injury-filled seasons (one who has had major surgery), against two guys who haven't been hurt and are younger. I think the Celtics group might be more comparable the the Nets' bench from two years ago, when they had Jacque Vaughn, Ron Mercer, Buford, and the rest of those low-cost options that were coming off poor or injury-filled seasons.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan)</div><div class='quotemain'>Will Rondo be a starter or a member of the bench?</div>Barring any free agent signing, he will start. He's an effective point guard, but he's not best suited for a half-court offense in which he will have to convert open perimeter shots. Though the Celtics will run the offense through Garnett in the high post, Rondo is fully capable of creating for others. Since he does not have a jump shot, defenders play him loose, preventing his ability to slash to the basket, but he's still effective. Defensively, he can keep up with the likes of Gilbert Arenas, so when he starts to get respect from the refs, he'll be a great defender. </p> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Which number in the rotation will Veal be?</div>I don't think Doc Rivers will even determine this before December, but I guess he will be the first forward off the bench, though it depends on the progression of Glen Davis and Leon Powe in training camp. Both players looked very good in summer league and I expect Davis to be able to be a decent back-up by the end of the season. The Celtics should look to only sign a veteran big man to a two year deal, at most, since I feel that Davis may be good enough to match Paul Millsap's rookie season in '09. </p> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Do the Celtics have anyone on the bench as good as Nachbar?</div>No, not at all. Tony Allen may recover completely, but that's doubtful. The Celtics still must sign a veteran perimeter defender and a veteran center if they want to make it to the Eastern Conference Finals this season, but I feel that their bench is not significantly worse than the Nets, especially considering the way Allen, Garnett, and Pierce will be used. If Doc Rivers is smart, two of the three all-stars will be on the floor at all time. They all command double teams, so the reserves will be left open often. Playing with great players makes you better. </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Premier)</div><div class='quotemain'> If Doc Rivers is smart, two of the three all-stars will be on the floor at all time. They all command double teams, so the reserves will be left open often. Playing with great players makes you better. </p></div> This is Doc Rivers we are talking about.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Premier)</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Do the Celtics have anyone on the bench as good as Nachbar?</div>No, not at all. Tony Allen may recover completely, but that's doubtful. The Celtics still must sign a veteran perimeter defender and a veteran center if they want to make it to the Eastern Conference Finals this season, but I feel that their bench is not significantly worse than the Nets, especially considering the way Allen, Garnett, and Pierce will be used. If Doc Rivers is smart, two of the three all-stars will be on the floor at all time. They all command double teams, so the reserves will be left open often. Playing with great players makes you better. </p> </div>That's why this will be fascinating to watch. Can the Celtics uncover a Mikki Moore?
[quote name='Dumpy']Part of the problem with this debate is that we have mixed starters and reserves somewhat. We've included Rondo and Perkins in the discussion, but by all indications they'll be starters for the Celtics. So either we eliminate them from the discussion, or we include Krstic and either Magloire or Collins. I don't care either way, but to make this simpler, let's eliminate them.[/quote]Okay, though I must note that I have not included them in bench discussions. </p> Out of that group, Glen Davis is the only guy that I can say will be good enough to make any rotation in the league within the next two years. These guys are serviceable. With the exception of Wallace and Pollard, they will all make a positive impact this season. They each have something to contribute and given limited minutes, they can be quite successful. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Glen Davis and Leon Powe are better, collectively, than Sean Williams and Josh Boone. I'm a big Sean Williams fan, but he's extremely raw. He is a poor rebounder and he takes too much risks in help defense. His offensive game is not developed at all. Al Skinner could have done wonders for him if he managed to stay in school, but he blew that opportunity. To be fair, you cannot include Magloire if I did not include Perkins. For what it's worth, Magloire is not so much better than Perkins, especially in terms of rebounding and interior defense. Outside of Nachbar, I think their respective benches are even. </p>
yeah, it took me so damn long to write, I forgot tht I agreed to elilminate Magloire. I agree about Sean Williams, but I am still comfortable that Boone will be more productive than Powe and Glen Davis, both this year and in the future, assuming of course that Coach Frank utilizes him. But the Celtics bench is riskier, if only because of the injury history of House, Tony Allen, and Pollard. That has to be taken into account, at least at this point of the season. Of course, you could make the same point about Josh Boone.
Yeah. I think Nachbar separates the Nets' bench from the Celtics, but it's not as significant as a difference as some have claimed.
