Page 1 of 2
Should we have traded for J-Rich instead of Ray Allen?
Posted: Thu Mar 6, 2008 1:36 pm
by sarcasma
Of the big 3, Ray Allen is clearly the weakest link. If hes not shooting the ball well, he isnt helping that much. As an older player, each year he is going to have fewer and fewer good games until he becomes just a shooter off the bench. We could have had Jason Richardson for the 5th pick, would you guys rather have him over Ray?
Re: Should we have traded for J-Rich instead of Ray Allen?
Posted: Thu Mar 6, 2008 1:42 pm
by CelticsWhat!
sarcasma wrote:Of the big 3, Ray Allen is clearly the weakest link. If hes not shooting the ball well, he isnt helping that much. As an older player, each year he is going to have fewer and fewer good games until he becomes just a shooter off the bench. We could have had Jason Richardson for the 5th pick, would you guys rather have him over Ray?
I actually thought Ray did an awesome job on the defensive end last night. And no, I wouldn't rather have Jason Richardson than Ray Allen.
Posted: Thu Mar 6, 2008 1:51 pm
by Tricky Ricky
I would rather have had J Rich but KG would prob rather had Allen, so Allen it is
Posted: Thu Mar 6, 2008 1:52 pm
by BillessuR6
Wow. Some of you are unbelievable!
We have one of the best shooters and one of the most clutch players in the NBA and people want to trade him for some random shooting guard every other week.
Do you people really don`t see what Ray brings to this team? Do you really don`t see how good he is?l

Re: Should we have traded for J-Rich instead of Ray Allen?
Posted: Thu Mar 6, 2008 1:55 pm
by cisco
sarcasma wrote:Of the big 3, Ray Allen is clearly the weakest link. If hes not shooting the ball well, he isnt helping that much. As an older player, each year he is going to have fewer and fewer good games until he becomes just a shooter off the bench. We could have had Jason Richardson for the 5th pick, would you guys rather have him over Ray?
You sure you're not talking about Eddie House? Ray only scored 3 pts, but had 8 boards and 5 assists. I'd say he helped.
Posted: Thu Mar 6, 2008 1:56 pm
by Truthiracy
J-Rich is a punk, has character issues, how would he have helped the chemistry on this team? I'll take Ray Allen any day.
Posted: Thu Mar 6, 2008 1:56 pm
by Bad-Thoma
Rays been playing pretty damned well I thought, and playing an all around game. For a guy who was reputedly a bad defender he's been pretty solid there all season. Which probably is just a good example of defense being a 5 man job, when everyone commits to it the whole team looks better. Maybe even Cassell won't look like a turn stile here

. What makes you think Ray isn't playing well? First half of the year I would have been inclined to agree with you, but since he's got his lift back from his injury he's been great.
Posted: Thu Mar 6, 2008 1:57 pm
by CanSee17
My guess is that in order to entice Garnett to become a Celtic, they had to get rid of Wally. Wally was making a boatload of money and a trade for Richardson wouldn't have worked.
As far as maturity and clutch, Ray has him beat so he may be a better fit for this team.
But Richardson is only 27 and putting up nearly identical numbers. All things being equal I would take him over Ray Allen...
Posted: Thu Mar 6, 2008 2:02 pm
by bruno sundov
Ray will always pull through in the clutch. I think he is playing through some serious pain with those anckles. IF he was only supposed to practice every other day and not play in back to back games. he is probably hurting real bad right now. That is what the Dr. told him anyways.
Re: Should we have traded for J-Rich instead of Ray Allen?
Posted: Thu Mar 6, 2008 2:16 pm
by Matt34520
sarcasma wrote:Of the big 3, Ray Allen is clearly the weakest link. If hes not shooting the ball well, he isnt helping that much. As an older player, each year he is going to have fewer and fewer good games until he becomes just a shooter off the bench. We could have had Jason Richardson for the 5th pick, would you guys rather have him over Ray?
I think were doing fine with Ray...47-12 isn't bad.
Posted: Thu Mar 6, 2008 2:44 pm
by Tricky Ricky
bruno sundov wrote:Ray will always pull through in the clutch. I think he is playing through some serious pain with those anckles. IF he was only supposed to practice every other day and not play in back to back games. he is probably hurting real bad right now. That is what the Dr. told him anyways.
I think Ray will be realllllll clutch in the playoffs.
Posted: Thu Mar 6, 2008 2:45 pm
by Tricky Ricky
[quote="CanSee17"]My guess is that in order to entice Garnett to become a Celtic, they had to get rid of Wally. Wally was making a boatload of money and a trade for Richardson wouldn't have worked.
quote]
Good point GS would never do this
Posted: Thu Mar 6, 2008 2:53 pm
by sully00
What are you watching sarcasma?
Ray Allen shot 50% from the field and 46% from 3pt and going for 20.1/4.1/3.6 in the month of Feb.
This isn't to say Richardson isn't a good player he is he is just at a different point in his career he is looking to make his mark not do what it takes to win a title. He is what Ray was 6 years ago or Pierce 4 years ago. He doesn't want to hear about only getting 14 shots a game and sacrificing for the team that is why he is in CHA not with the Warriors. They finally had gotten Baron to understand that it had to be we and not me and then J-Rich is counting his attempts instead of looking at the final score.
Maybe we will want J-Rich in 3 years when Ray is all done and he can have Paul's job while Paul moves into Ray's. But they play a bump on one of the radio stations in Boston, I think it is ESPN, and it is Doc talking about why this is working and it is because Ray is 32, KG 31, and Paul 30, they have done it their way and achieved what they can as individuals now they are sacrificing to win as a team.
Posted: Thu Mar 6, 2008 2:58 pm
by RoyHobbs
Reasons this is a bad idea:
1) Ray Allen is the most clutch player on our team;
2) Ray Allen is having one of his most efficient seasons as a pro;
3) Despite being the focal point of his team's offense, Jason Richardson's stats are only slightly better than Allen's;
4) Ray Allen has been a better defender this season than Richardson;
5) Jason Richardson had major injury concerns coming into this year, and only averaged 16.0 ppg last year;
6) Jason Richardson's attitude has been questioned in the past, while Ray Allen is seen as a consummate professional;
7) Jason Richardson's game duplicates Paul Pierce's more than Allen's does.
Posted: Thu Mar 6, 2008 3:05 pm
by rambo_ortega
we wouldn't get jrich for our pick without giving up wally which is not what gs wants.
nevertheless, i would pick ray allen over jrich any day of the week. he can shoot the lights out and is satisfied with his role in this team. he will bail us out come playoff time.
Posted: Thu Mar 6, 2008 3:07 pm
by Celts17Pride
This gets my vote for the dumbest topic of the day.

Posted: Thu Mar 6, 2008 3:08 pm
by daveisceltics
Because Richardson plays good against us doesn't mean he comes close to Ray.
All hes done in his career is win the dunk contest.
Posted: Thu Mar 6, 2008 3:25 pm
by vct33
I'll take Ray Allen's hunger. That's gonna be the difference maker come playoff time. You have three studs who see their windows of opportunity closing before their eyes.
Posted: Thu Mar 6, 2008 3:38 pm
by Prophet_C
IBTL
Posted: Thu Mar 6, 2008 4:18 pm
by Bytista2
Do we always have to have a thread about trading ray allen when he has a bad game? cmon , c's are 47-12 and ray is a big part of the reason why. Before this game he was shooting lights out , so please quit making these kind of threads.