RealGM

There's too many projects and mediocre or one dimensional players on our team. We need to get rid of some these guys. Luckily most have an expiring or cheap contract. The most amount of projects we should have on this team is 2-3 players.

Scala, Tony, Pruitt, Hudson, Giddens, Walker, House

I'd much rather have 3 players that our good

(for example)

Moon, Marbury, Joe Smith,

The 12 million or so we are spending on these 7 guys we could spend on players who are more consistent. Scala, Tony and Eddie who are the veterans of the group (and our making close to 9 mil collectively next season) don't seem to play the same night in and night out.

I thought this was a big baby thread

Marbury?

Joekickass2008 wrote:I thought this was a big baby thread

I correctly guessed Scal at least.

cfan79 wrote:There's too many projects and mediocre or one dimensional players on our team. We need to get rid of some these guys. Luckily most have an expiring or cheap contract. The most amount of projects we should have on this team is 2-3 players.

Scala, Tony, Pruitt, Hudson, Giddens, Walker, House

I'd much rather have 3 players that our good

(for example)

Moon, Marbury, Joe Smith,

IMO Veal is useful as an end of the bench guy - decent size, can play D and shoot a little, has a brain , and can come in cold and help, which is important in a bench player. He is obviously not a important rotation play like he had to be in the playoffs but no one I know ever thought he was.

Tony has no brain and is done.

Pruitt is at the make or break point IMO. I suspect he will not make it.

Giddens and Walker are just sophomores and probably only one will stick in the longer run.

Hudson is a 58th pick. Ainge drafts well but getting a real player at 58 is never likely.

House can put the ball in the hole and that is always valuable (see Steve Kerr). House can be defensed and it would be nice if he could do more but if he could he would have been in higher demand when Ainge got him in the first place.

can't understand why the celtics all time 3pt fg% player is fat. makes no sense... no sense at all.

Were talking end of the bench players here. Scal and House have there roles here and there end of the bench veterans who don't complain. They can fill in as needed. Both played pretty good this season. As for the other four Giddens and Walker are the projects they are youht and both have potential. TA should have been gone a year or two ago after the chicago incident and he is way overrated. Pruitt is on his last leg and it debateable if his opyion is picked up. Remember this guy was drafted ahead of big baby and he hasn't shown zip. He was handed the backup point guard slot and couldn't handle it but it is debateable if there is anyone better to fill that role. So es you can trim the fat but if you sign vets they want playing time so you have to some projects though if
I were GM TA would be out the door.

BigHands wrote:1 IMO Veal is useful as an end of the bench guy - decent size, can play D and shoot a little, has a brain , and can come in cold and help, which is important in a bench player. He is obviously not a important rotation play like he had to be in the playoffs but no one I know ever thought he was.

2Tony has no brain and is done.

3 Pruitt is at the make or break point IMO. I suspect he will not make it.

4 Giddens and Walker are just sophomores and probably only one will stick in the longer run.

5 Hudson is a 58th pick. Ainge drafts well but getting a real player at 58 is never likely.

6 House can put the ball in the hole and that is always valuable (see Steve Kerr). House can be defensed and it would be nice if he could do more but if he could he would have been in higher demand when Ainge got him in the first place.

I agree with you on 2 through 5, but I think that we could do better with the 3.4 mil we are paying Scala. Also Eddie House is so hot and cold that its hard to know which Eddie will show up.

We could probably sign Joe Smith for less then half of what Scala is getting paid. Marbury might not accept a deal with us because he'll feel he's worth more.

I just cannot understand why people hate so much on Scalabrine. He has never gotten a fair chance with some people on this board.

He is a very nice player to have on the team. He spaces the floor, plays solid D and never takes anything away from anybod. He doesn't stop the ball, he doesn't need the ball, he just goes out and helps.

I remember something that Kendrick Perkins said a few years ago, when he was asked about the roster (before the KG and Ray Allen trades). He said: "We have to many Chiefs, not enough Indians". Scalabrine is not a chief. He is a hard-working blue-coller basketball player.

Another thing, while we pay the 'fat on the roster' 12 millions, it's not like we could just go out and trade those guys into one 12 million dollar player. This is not a computer game. Another big star could offset the morale of the team and stir things up. Egos matter in this sport and we need to have guys with their confidence high, instead of having guys that are not sure of their role on the team.

The third thing I want to adress is Eddie House. He is a scrappy player, plays hard on D and is a perfect guy you want to space the floor with. Imagine him on the floor with PP, Ray, KG and Sheed. Every player needs to be guarded tightly. Pierce could then go one-on-one and if the D collapses he can kick the ball out.

John Locke wrote:I just cannot understand why people hate so much on Scalabrine. He has never gotten a fair chance with some people on this board.

He is a very nice player to have on the team. He spaces the floor, plays solid D and never takes anything away from anybod. He doesn't stop the ball, he doesn't need the ball, he just goes out and helps.

I don't hate Scala, I just think we can do better. I still don't know why Danny signed him for 5 years. We were a young team when we got him and didn't need him. Now we are a title team able to get vets for peanuts.

The reality with 3 max contracts, is that you're going to end up with a lot of marginal talent in the bottom positions. There is no cap room to sign better players, and only limited numbers of MLE and LLE available to sign someone at other than the Vet minimum. Add on that since the Celtics have a good record, they're getting only marginal players in the draft.

The guys you dismiss as not roster worthy aren't going to buy you good players in a trade, no matter how many of them you add up to make salaries match.

Other than Marbury, who is there for any team at minimum contract (and still nobody is interested), I don't have a problem with your suggested replacements. Marbury is another one of these marginal players at the same level, in fact lower in some cases, that you want to magically turn from gravel into gold. At the end of the day, there needs to be at least 13 guys on the roster, so there is going to end up being a bunch of filler no matter what.

Dave_From_NB wrote:The guys you dismiss as not roster worthy aren't going to buy you good players in a trade, no matter how many of them you add up to make salaries match.

There are a lot of teams that want to save money. Hopefully we are not one of them and we continue to spend to win. I'd be willing to take a bad contract to get a good player.

cfan79 wrote:

Dave_From_NB wrote:The guys you dismiss as not roster worthy aren't going to buy you good players in a trade, no matter how many of them you add up to make salaries match.

There are a lot of teams that want to save money. Hopefully we are not one of them and we continue to spend to win. I'd be willing to take a bad contract to get a good player.

That's how you become the New York Knicks. You keep taking bad contracts, and pretty soon the only thing you're leading the league in is luxury tax. A bad contract and good player is bad value. It comes back to bite you when you need to replace RA or resign Rondo or Perkins.

5 years of complaining about Scals contract, and we're supposed to move it now that it's expiring so that we can have a different bad long term contract to whine about? No thanks.

I think Scal is a perfect end of the bench guy for this team. Knows his role, plays hard D and can hit open shots. I don't know what else you want from a 12th man.

I have no problem trading any of those players. I just want to get someone better in return who is on a good contract.

That's the problem. Teams aren't going to give away their good players on good contracts so they can get our trash.

Celtics made it clear that they are staying in house for a backup pg. So Pruitt probably isn't going anywhere unless Hudson heals and steps up.

Dave_From_NB wrote:

cfan79 wrote:

Dave_From_NB wrote:The guys you dismiss as not roster worthy aren't going to buy you good players in a trade, no matter how many of them you add up to make salaries match.

There are a lot of teams that want to save money. Hopefully we are not one of them and we continue to spend to win. I'd be willing to take a bad contract to get a good player.

That's how you become the New York Knicks. You keep taking bad contracts, and pretty soon the only thing you're leading the league in is luxury tax. A bad contract and good player is bad value. It comes back to bite you when you need to replace RA or resign Rondo or Perkins.

5 years of complaining about Scals contract, and we're supposed to move it now that it's expiring so that we can have a different bad long term contract to whine about? No thanks.

It has been a totally weird mix of dynamics with Scal, hasn't it? People were furious about him...then he became like a mascot - a fan favorite......then he settled into a valuable role. You hit the nail on the head - I've never seen so much complaining about a 5 year $18 million contract for someone who actually contributes. Scal can play 8 minutes, have a DNP and come back with 20 minutes and be effective and not complain. That is an underestimated quality. Scal logged many quality minutes with the team when it started 27-2 last year. House has been a major factor in playoff victories - how id he FAT?
You can talk about upgrades and I'm all ears, but it isn't like these guys had no value.

Why would you get rid of Eddie House and keep Starbury.