POST GAME - LA LAKERS - AWAY

NEXT GAME - SATURDAY - AWAY - AT SAC. KINGS - 10:00PM

Rapid Reaction: Lakers 101, Celtics 92

By Chris Forsberg | ESPNBoston.com

LOS ANGELES -- Rapid reaction after the Los Angeles Lakers defeated the Boston Celtics 101-92 on Friday night at the Staples Center:

THE NITTY GRITTY
MarShon Brooks extracted revenge on his former team by scoring 10 fourth-quarter points as the Lakers rallied from a 13-point deficit over the final 15 minutes. Brooks, playing his first game for Los Angeles, scored 14 points on 7-of-11 shooting over 23 minutes. Kent Bazemore, also acquired from the Golden State Warriors in a swap for Steve Blake, added 15 point son 5-of-10 shooting. Brandon Bass scored 20 points on 8-of-15 shooting with eight rebounds, while Jared Sullinger had a double-double (12 points, 12 rebounds). Jeff Green scored 11 of his team-high 21 points in the first quarter.

TURNING POINT
The Celtics were up 11 entering the final frame, but it was Brooks (honestly) that spearheaded the Lakers' comeback. After scoring the final basket of the third quarter, he registered four field goals in the first 3 ½ minutes of the fourth as the Lakers surged ahead. It was Bazemore who hit a 3-pointer to put the Lakers up seven with little more than four minutes to go and left Boston scrambling for a timeout. Boston never got closer than five the rest of the way.

LOOSE BALLS
The Celtics were outscored 38-18 in the fourth quarter. ... The Celtics shot 39.2 percent overall (38 of 97), while the Lakers shot 48.2 percent (40 of 83). ... Boston missed 18 of 22 3-pointers it put up (18.2 percent). ... A quiet night for Rajon Rondo: 4 points, 11 assists, 6 rebounds over 34:16. ... Joel Anthony was a healthy DNP for Boston.

WHAT IT MEANS
The Celtics (19-37) lost their third straight and flip-flopped spots in the league standings with the Lakers (19-36). Boston now owns the NBA's fifth worst winning percentage (.339). The Celtics will visit the Sacramento Kings, the team with the fourth worst winning percentage (.333) on Saturday on the second night of a back-to-back. Boston's four-game trip wraps up on Monday in Utah.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Lakers sink Celtics, 101-92

CSNE - A. SHERROD BLAKLEY

LOS ANGELES — The buzz and sizzle that's usually a staple of the Boston Celtics-Los Angeles Lakers series was nowhere to be found for most of Friday night's matchup.

But in the fourth quarter, the crowd - much like the Lakers' team - finally showed signs of life.

And the Celtics?

Once again, Boston managed to play its worst basketball at the absolute worst time of the game - the fourth quarter.

And that proved to be too much for them to handle as the Lakers rallied for a 101-92 win over Boston.

The Lakers used a 13-2 run to start the fourth that tied the game at 76. From there, the Lakers (19-36) gradually pulled away for the victory.

Friday night's outcome isn't all that surprising when you consider how woeful they have been playing in Western Conference buildings.

How bad?

Try 0-for-the-season bad.

When you tack on their struggles against Western Conference teams at the end of last season, you have a Boston (19-37) team that has now lost 17 straight road games to Western Conference teams.

And while games at Sacramento and Utah coming up would appear to be winnable games on paper, there's no such thing when it comes to these Boston Celtics.

Boston led most of the game, even taking a double-digit lead into the fourth quarter.

But the Celtics fell victim to a blast from their not-so-distant past.

It was former Green Teamer MarShon Brooks who was shipped out to Golden State in January, and now calls the Lakers his new home - for the next 27 games anyway.

Brooks scored a season-high 14 points, eight of which came during Los Angeles' 13-2 run to start the fourth.

Friday's loss was a microcosm of Boston's season, one in which different players would show moments of dominance followed by long and lengthy stretches of being a non-factor.

Jeff Green led the Celtics with 21 points, but 11 came in the game's first quarter which included him scoring Boston's first seven points.

Others began to step up and contribute, as Boston closed out the first with a 15-6 run to lead 28-19 after the first.

Boston led for the entire second quarter, but an 8-2 run by the Lakers cut the Celtics' lead to just 46-44 at the half.

The Celtics continued to play with a lead in the third quarter that increased to as many as 13 points before a basket in the final minute by Brooks cut Boston's lead to 74-63 going into the fourth.

112288

I felt a very strange and empty feeling watching  tonight's game....I mean in just a few short years ago my adrenaline was pumping 5 hours before game time........and tonight felt like tasting warm flat soda.  Something was missing.......I guess like the title of the Beach Boy's song ............ Heroes & Villains. No KG...No Koby........No Truth.......No Bynam...........sad in a way.

Wish we gave Brooks an opportunity to play more in Boston....kid can light it up......perhaps Danny will revisit him again in the summer.

Looks like we are going to stumble to the finish.......gotta keep moral up!

112288

Celtics starting forwards outscored the Lakers starting forwards 41 to 1 and Boston still lost.  Amazing.  

I needed more Anchor Steams than I got.  The price of "being good" is a vicious mindset this morning.  When I'm watching a Celtics game I am completely focused and people usually know better than to try and talk to me, since I either don't hear them talking to me or I pass some vaporless gas to make them think I'm listening to them (when I'm really not).  Last night a friend of mine (married, with her husband right there) draped herself all over me in an attempt to distract me.  I think I said something like "your perfume is focusing on the game" or something like that.  Shortly thereafter I was aware of a lightening of weight on my shoulders.  We'll see how that goes.  Next time I see her and go over to say Hi she might look at the TV and say "I like your shirt, but I'm cooking a meatloaf for dinner".  That would be just like her too.  

A 38-18 4th quarter?  38!?  Really?  38!?  We got croaked by two guys who put on their purple-and-gold for the first time that morning and by the Lakers' generally higher energy level, fueled by those two.  I'd say they just showed up with the last drop of rain, but it doesn't rain in LA.  The Lakers shot 16-23 in the 4th quarter.  That's almost 70%.  How'd our Celtics do in that 4th quarter?  8-24.  I don't need a calculator to know that sucks by any standard.

Our transition defense sucks, overall.  There were times when we would sorta fall halfway back, but not mark a Laker streaking for the rim and then try to recover and catch up to him.  It didn't work.  I'm ok with attacking the offensive boards, but if you're not attacking the board you have to fall back AND pick up a man even if he's not yours.  Just retreating is mindless.

We shot 39% against the team with the 2nd worst defense in the league?  Another sub-.400 game.  How many is that out of the last 10?  

1.  Of all the players who were traded or were the subject of trade talks (Gasol, Hill, Bazemore, Brooks, Kaman, Bass, Rondo, Green), which ones played like they were relieved they weren't traded and which ones played like they were actually excited about their current status?  On the Laker side, all those players played well in the minutes they got.  Hill had 10 points and 11 rebounds, Kaman had 16 points and 8 rebounds, Gasol had 16 on 6-12 and 7 rebounds and 3 assists in just 22 minutes, Bazemore and Brooks lit us up for a combined 29 points on 12-21.  On the Celtic side, the only player who played like he was happy to still be in green was the one who, in post-trade deadline interviews, said that he was happy he was still a Celtic:  Brandon Bass.  Green came out and attacked and then cooled off.  He also couldn't cool off MarShon Brooks, who is 4" shorter.  Then again, neither could Wallace.  I know, maybe I'm being a little harsh on Green.  After all, he did score 21 on 8-17 and was 3-6 from 3, but 2-5 in the 4th and he got caught watching the paint dry on both half court and transition defense.  He just doesn't have the "big player" in him.  As an NBA GM said "he's a great side dish, not a main course".  We need a main course to start at 3, just like every championship team does.  Rondo was 2-12, following up on his 7-22 night in Phoenix.  Only Bass was on his game last night for the Celtics.  He had 4fgm from outside and 4 at the rim.

2.  Hump looked lost out there.  Haven't seen that often.

3.  Kelly came out and looked great.  I mean, like, where I actually muttered to the drunk next to me (his name's Matt and he's a nice guy, he just doesn't always see "the line" where he should stop, like last night) "is that our Kelly?"  I'm lucky he didn't know any Kelly's he could go on and on about.  He (back to Kelly) got at least fingernails on a lot of passes. He not only got back on defense, he picked up Lakers in transition and picked off passes (as opposed to playing center field in the middle of the floor while Lakers were flying down the wings, like Green did).  Unfortunately, he couldn't throw the ball in the Pacific from the end of the Santa Monica pier.  He got schooled by Kaman a few times, on the same move down low.  Don't go for the fakes, Kelly.  Kaman is just as landlocked as you, he won't jump over you.  More learning curve.  He was in the middle of a Sportcenter 3 pass score; Wallace to Rondo to Kelly who made the bee-utiful mid-lane touch pass to Bass for the dunk.  By establishing his passing and court vision bona fides, he also made a layup of his own possible by forcing the Lakers to bite on a faked pass on his drive to the rim.  His shooting, obviously, sucked as did his man-to-man on Kaman but there were other parts of his game like his rebounding and his help defense and his transition defense (which in general was very bad for us) that left me hopeful.  This is a year for "hopeful".

4.  Our bench scored 21 points on 9-25, 0-7 from 3, 11 rebounds, 5 assists, 4 TOs.  Their bench scored 63 points on 26-46, 4-9 from 3, 11 assists and 12 TOs.  Pressey looked like shit.  Bayless looked like shit.  CJ missed his 3s and did some good but nothing that would make me say "Good job, CJ!".  Hump looked like Mr. Kardashian.  Is there something about LA that people into mush (sorry, there's a reason why I live in NorCal and not SoCal and it isn't the weather).

5.  We need height, badly.  I know that most people have trouble with Gasol's height and comprehensive skills but Kaman?  We're not keeping people out of the paint and Sully did no better than Kelly.  This would have been a good game for Vitor, up against Gasol and especially Kaman, but he's back in Boston.  We're not intimidating anybody, nor will we for the next 26 games until this is mercifully over.  

6.  They're going to love MarShon in LA.  He's a scorer and they love scorers in LA.  With Kobe on his professional death bed they're going to go into Me-ball withdrawal and Brooks will help them through that (like a "transition girlfriend/boyfriend".  Not the one you want so much as the one you want now).  Maybe, like Gerald Green, he has just needed to bounce around a bit before he grows up and figures it out and LA will be his final stop.  So far it has been, what, 3 teams (Nets, Celtics, GSW) who "oohed" over his potential and then "ahhhed" when they were able to move him?

7.  Another tough night for Sully.  6-16 himself and getting shot over like a Syracuse Orangeman shooting over a high schooler.  Out of his 12 rebounds, 9 were offensive, so he did do some good, but his 6-16 showed that getting the ball wasn't enough.  Gasol and Hill, in particular, were doing a very good of rim protection with blocks on Sully and Kelly and Rondo.

Blech.  No Nick Young, no Kobe, no Nash and still no win.  Blech.  

Where's my voodoo textbook that tells me how to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear?  Dumbledore!  Where the hell are you (I admit, I had to look this up.  I've never read nor seen a Harry Potter)?

Horrible ganas in the 4th quarter.  Horrible.  Excellent, I must say, by the Lakers though.  Hill really got pumped up by Bazemore and Brooks' energy.  I still can't believe nobody would take Jordan Hill off the Lakers for a 2nd round pick.  At $3.6M, he's a steal.  We looked like we just got 2x4'd across the bridge of the nose.

We need more anger, more hostility, more resentment at being pushed around.  We need to start throwing some punches and not just taking them (figuratively speaking only.  I just mean having an aggressive, offensive mindset and not a "what the hell is happening?" look about us).  We need Sully to channel his inner KG and start making people cry.  We need Wallace to pin their arms to their sides while Sully does it.  We need to kill some puppies.



Our offense sucks and our defense isn't looking good either.  We don't only want to develop individual players, we want to mold a system.  When will we start seeing that?  It looks like it won't happen until the offsesason and bodies start moving.

Blech.



bob


.

Best of Bill Simmons broadcast with Mike last night.


http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/celtics/post/_/id/4711107/video-best-of-simmons-broadcast



bob


.

Bob,

Yes, the Celtics' transition defense was porous, but the Celtics' rim protection was even worse.  At least Pau started most of his offensive moves somewhere out in the lane and earned them.  Kaman just hung out within two feet of the rim, made the catch, and quickly pivoted (a la vintage Dave Cowens) to sink a two-inch layin.  That's a high-percentage shot, and it was seemingly available to the Lakers whenever they needed it.

I believe a lot of perceived deficiencies of individual players are at least partially due to indirect factors.  Failure to set picks can make a slasher look bad.  Failure to get into a halfcourt set until there are 10-14 ticks left on the clock can result in a shooter lowering his percentage with a wild prayer at the buzzer.  Failure of a teammate to rotate properly can make a defensive player look bad by apparently "losing his man" when all he did was to rotate properly himself.  The possible examples are myriad.

All of these "failures" take a collective toll; and this team is prone to so many types of "failures" that the laws of probability dictate that at least some (if not most) of the failures will come into play before 48 minutes have elapsed.  I have believed, since the beginning of the season, that every game begins with the presence of one automatic failure on the part of the Celtics—the lack of a rim protector—and the imbalance that indirectly causes on the rest of the team by the often-futile adjustments that are required.

And I'm talking about causing problems on both ends of the floor.  On the defensive end, opposing bigs can wear down shorter and/or less bulky and/or less athletic Celtics bigs as the game wears on and as the defensive adjustments tried by Brad become increasingly predictable, fatigued, and ineffective.  (This syndrome is not limited to bigs either, as Brooks proved last night.)

And, since the offensive and defensive ends of the floor are as interrelated as the shin bone and the knee bone, defensive breakdowns can result in ineffective offense.  For instance, problems at the defensive end (whether problems of execution and/or matchups and/or physical fatigue caused by playing out of position or the need for constant adjustments and/or mental fatigue caused by the repeated frustration of having opponents score within seven seconds of the Celtics' own hard-earned points) can disrupt offensive opportunities, offensive rhythm, offensive timing, etc.

This, I believe, is why the Celtics repeatedly play worse in the second half than in the first half.  Patchwork solutions to endemic problems can work for a while but not in the long haul.  It was obvious to me, even when the Celtics led by double digits after three quarters, that the Lakers were exhibiting far more energy than the Celtics and possessed more weapons with which to make a comeback.  And, at that point, I didn't even consider MarShon Brooks to be one of those weapons.  I was thinking primary about whether the comeback vehicle would center on Gasol or Kaman.  (I incorrectly guessed it would be Gasol.  Whatever.  The fact that it was Kaman just underscores the fact that a terrible team had more comeback avenues than the Celtics did.)

In the second halves of games, opponents can pretty much count on some form of exhaustion (physical and/or mental) beginning to infiltrate the Celtics' rotation.  Then they can go to work on trying different ways to disrupt the Celtics' execution.  A popular method is to try the long ball and, if that doesn't work, to try dribble-penetration and, if that doesn't work, to get the ball down low to exploit the height advantage.  And, after the height advantage has begun to work its magic and the Celtics are back on their heels and packing the defense in the lane, the opponent can go back to the long ball and start the cycle again.

In short, the imbalance of the roster is a major reason why the 2013-14 Celtics are a reactionary team rather than an aggressive team.  And, in those games where they're initially aggressive, the pendulum usually swings in the other direction by halftime.

So, when you say the lack of a system is a problem, I believe it's not so much the inability of Brad to identify a system as it is the inability of an unbalanced and flawed roster to execute any system with in a sustained manner.  And i also believe the imbalance starts in the middle and spreads outward.  Just throw a stone into a pond, and you'll see what I mean.

That's why I so fervently had hoped that the Celtics would plug the hole in the middle.  It was not because I expected it would change the W/L record dramatically this season.  It was because I felt it would propel the Celtics into a more balanced situation that (1) would facilitate a more consistent presence of aggression, (2) would make responses to competitors' weapons more sustainable throughout a game and (3) would permit the Celtics to come together as a team without by the constant disruptions caused by opponents' adjustments.

So far, it's not looking good as far as Celtics team development is concerned this season.  Spurts here; spurts there; but few (if any) sustained improvements that might at least hint of a systemic direction down the road.  Maybe Brad can move the indicator of team development positively despite the inherent deficits caused by the lack of a prototypical big in the middle.  I hope so.  

Sam

I've resisted going all grassy knoll on Danny and Brad conspiring to tank the Celtics this year, but last night's game raised my suspicions. What on earth is Gerald Wallace doing on the floor with Rondo? He does nothing to improve spacing; he's a horrible passer (except in one instance) who repeatedly turns the ball over with lackadaisical attempts to pass to Rondo, and he sucks as a shooter. Chris Johnson should be out there with RR, spreading the floor, giving Rajon someone to pass to who can score from the outside, thus opening up the middle.

Bayless with Rondo also makes me sick. Bayless wants to play point guard when he's on the court with Rondo when that's not his job, but then again he's no 2.

The only good news about the rotations Brad is pairing with Rajon is that we are losing enough games to have a better lottery pick. Still I hate watching the Celts lose, and I don't like these lineups which IMHO increase the chances of us losing.

Unfortunately, the Celtics are 5 losses away from 41. The losses have just been piling up and at this point it seems inevitable.

Is Danny tanking? At this point, probably. I believe that before (say December for example) moves could have been made to strengthen the weaknesses. But none were made. Is Brad tanking? I doubt it. He lacks both the pieces and experience at the NBA level to win consistently.

Perhaps coaches are just as prone to regressing as players are?



KJ

How can anyone watch this team fight every night and think they are tanking?

Beats the hell out of me, Mrkleen. I guess people are talking about Danny, not Brad or the team. Apparently many people would prefer Danny make trades for show even though the trades might not be helpful in the long run. People have intermittently preached patience this season without practicing it. To each his oen.

They're certainly not tanking.  They're undermanned (no Sullinger, Rondo or Bradley tonight), severely lacking in height even when healthy and no chemistry from all the different lineups.  Playing hard but almost every other team is just better.

I don't like the lineups on the floor with Rajon. It's not that the players are not fighting hard to win. They're certainly not tanking. Of course were Avery healthy outcomes would be better, but without him Rajon is in a very difficult spot, one which I think Brad makes more difficult by teaming him with Wallace. That's what raises my concerns.

Worcester, I guess Wallace is an acquired taste.  I happen to be one who has acquired the taste.  I don't believe he's a bad passer; in fact, I believe he's a good passer—probably the best out-of-bounds passer on the team.  And he trails only Rondo and Pressey on the team in terms of assists per minute.  I recall mentioning on a recent Game Own Thread that, when Wallace brings the ball upcourt (which he does fairly frequently), good things tend to eventuate.

He's not a big scorer because he doesn't shoot a lot, but leads all Celtics this season in terms of FG shooting percentage.  A big reason is that takes mainly good shots—a lot of which are drives to the hoop.  In my eyes, he's quite possibly the best slasher on the team.  If Jeff Green's name comes into the discussion, I'd change my description to the most consistently successful slasher on the team.

He's #1 on the team in terms of lack of fouls committed per minute despite invariably being called upon to guard good shooters (whether or not he's a height matchup).  That's because he is a very good defender.  In fact, he's virtually tied for first on the team in terms of steals per minute.

I can't explain his FT shooting of below 50%, since his lifetime average is 71%.  He's also not a great three-point shooter.  He seems to be the kind of guy whose weaknesses are remembered by fans while his strengths are either overlooked or taken for granted.

I've been talking about tangibles.  But, when it comes to intangibles, I believe no one on this team (except possibly Sully) has more consistently embodied as much energy on the floor as has Wallace.

Here's a question for you.  Of the members on this squad, which one(s) can make as many different types of genuine contributions in a game as Gerald Wallace has done this season?

Sam

Sam, Thanks for your truly informative, enlightening perspective. My opinions are based on a very limited set of data, as I've only had a chance to see three games in which Rondo and GW played together, and in the LA game I saw Wallace make two lazy passes to Rajon which resulted in turnovers. Perhaps I would have had severe criticisms of Larry Bird had I only seen him play three games with DJ in which he didn't play well, though I doubt he played 3 bad games his entire career.

Sam, mrkleen,

I am not in any way saying the players are tanking. I believe that alone would go against what they believe in. I also don't think Stevens is, either. I know he wants to win.

I only said what I said about Danny because there could have been some moves made earlier in the season to bring in a center (Asik perhaps, whom we've all been discussing as a possibility to fit that role), the team's primary glaring weakness. Danny is more concerned this year with cap space than the roster. It's obvious that he doesn't want to have to pay the repeater tax and if that means that this year things take a few steps back he's fine with it. The team's plethora of picks can be considered reason enough to not pull the trigger on major moves, depending on what one thinks.

I never thought the team would be winning a whole bunch of games this year. As I expected, they've been fighting hard and have been in most of their games this season.

I'm not sure if the intended point on this issue has gotten across yet. If anyone cares to prove me wrong about Ainge, I'm more than willing to consider any counterpoints to my charges. I certainly don't want to think this way about him.



KJ

The worst part of this game for me is confirmation of a worry that Brooks should not have been dealt with Crawford. Some day not so distant, I think that move may approach the mistake of letting Tony Allen go. Brooks has an offensive game, height, and could learn excellent D. Another Of course every move is hard to analyze out of context and who knows what DA sees? It could be that if we still had Brooks, we might have won the game and that would have hurt our chances in the draft, where we'll get someone much more valuable than Brooks, but I don't buy it.
I don't want to sound negative on the current season because I'm not. I still like Brad and our long-term chances. Danny makes more good moves than bad, but I wish Brooks were still in green, on the cheap. Hawk

k_j_88 wrote:I'm not sure if the intended point on this issue has gotten across yet. If anyone cares to prove me wrong about Ainge, I'm more than willing to consider any counterpoints to my charges. I certainly don't want to think this way about him.

Unless you were in on the calls and meetings with DA, you have no idea what was and was not possible.  Since I have no inside knowledge, I take Danny at his word.  That he did not have any deals on the table that made sense, and so he has decided to stand pat and head into the summer with a great number of assets at his disposal.

Danny has already shown us the blueprint for rebuilding - a few solid core pieces (Rondo / Bradley / Sully / Green/ Kelly) along with some bench support (Bayless / Humphries) and a free agent or 2.  The timeline for this might not suit some people out here - but I think DA has proven that he is a shrewd and reliable GM and I am happy to put my trust behind him.

mrkleen09 wrote:

k_j_88 wrote:I'm not sure if the intended point on this issue has gotten across yet. If anyone cares to prove me wrong about Ainge, I'm more than willing to consider any counterpoints to my charges. I certainly don't want to think this way about him.

Unless you were in on the calls and meetings with DA, you have no idea what was and was not possible.  Since I have no inside knowledge, I take Danny at his word.  That he did not have any deals on the table that made sense, and so he has decided to stand pat and head into the summer with a great number of assets at his disposal.

Danny has already shown us the blueprint for rebuilding - a few solid core pieces (Rondo / Bradley / Sully / Green/ Kelly) along with some bench support (Bayless / Humphries) and a free agent or 2.  The timeline for this might not suit some people out here - but I think DA has proven that he is a shrewd and reliable GM and I am happy to put my trust behind him.

Your first sentence is a moot point. None of us are GMs yet we discuss trade possibilities all the time. Unless of course no one here is ever supposed to say anything about potential roster changes.

Also, before what I'm saying gets taken the wrong way again, I'm not saying he's doing a bad job this year. I'm just stating that weaknesses were not addressed this year and that he had his own reason for doing so. I also stated that "Danny is more concerned this year with cap space than the roster. It's obvious that he doesn't want to have to pay the repeater tax and if that means that this year things take a few steps back he's fine with it. The team's plethora of picks can be considered reason enough to not pull the trigger on major moves, depending on what one thinks." You seem to have ignored that part. I wasn't trying to "blame" him, I was merely stating what was going on and the reasons for it.




KJ

k_j_88 wrote:
Your first sentence is a moot point. None of us are GMs yet we discuss trade possibilities all the time. Unless of course no one here is ever supposed to say anything about potential roster changes.

Also, before what I'm saying gets taken the wrong way again, I'm not saying he's doing a bad job this year. I'm just stating that weaknesses were not addressed this year and that he had his own reason for doing so. I also stated that "Danny is more concerned this year with cap space than the roster. It's obvious that he doesn't want to have to pay the repeater tax and if that means that this year things take a few steps back he's fine with it. The team's plethora of picks can be considered reason enough to not pull the trigger on major moves, depending on what one thinks." You seem to have ignored that part. I wasn't trying to "blame" him, I was merely stating what was going on and the reasons for it
KJ

Danny said there were no deals that made sense. You seem to suggest that you know otherwise. I think it is YOU the needs to prove him wrong, not the other way round.

mrkleen09 wrote:

Danny said there were no deals that made sense.  You seem to suggest that you know otherwise.  I think it is YOU the needs to prove him wrong, not the other way round.

I have opinions like anyone else. Many of us talk about trades, so to shine a spotlight on the fact that I just did it does not make sense. As I said earlier, Danny had his reasons for not making a trade for a center. I'm fine with that.

Once again, I never said he was doing anything this year as a detriment to the team. But that was ignored, also.



KJ

Opinions are fine....but opinions with no facts behind them, or worse - that follow with a series of backpedaling dont make much sense IMO

In your own words

k_j_88 wrote:Is Danny tanking? At this point, probably.

k_j_88 wrote:I never said he was doing anything this year as a detriment to the team.

So the players arent tanking and Stevens isnt tanking, but Danny is - yet, you dont consider that detrimental to the team?  

k_j_88 wrote:I only said what I said about Danny because there could have been some moves made earlier in the season to bring in a center

Then you admitted, that yeah - on second thought you have no idea if there were any legitimate deals offered to DA.

k_j_88 wrote:  I'm not saying he's doing a bad job this year. I'm just stating that weaknesses were not addressed this year and that he had his own reason for doing so.

Exactly - his own reasons, most of which you are not privy to.  So I guess I go back to your opening statement

k_j_88 wrote:Is Danny tanking? At this point, probably.

 

This whole tanking thing is a complete can of worms.  In the first place, to a Celtics fan, it's like a foreign language.  And learning a foreign language is a complex enough adventure for one person, let alone many people who are trying to converse in the foreign language while still learning it.  The term, in whatever form, is subject to different interpretations, different contexts, different "culprits," different degrees of intent------all sorts of complexities.

The "tank" term has become insidious and is used in as many forms as the "F" word: as an adjective, noun, verb, an imperative, and even as an adverb—as when Rhett Butler uttered the famous putdown to Scarlet O'Hara, "Tankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."  Some people use it as a synonym for losses.  Others use it in a general blanket sense without specifying whom they think the culprit(s) is/are or what it really is that they're being accused of.

I hated the term from the instant I first heard of it, largely because I could foresee all these problems mucking up board communication during a season when there are more than enough other complexities to address.  I know for a fact that, in many board messages utilizing some form of the term "tank," there are misconceptions as to what is meant by the term, who's being accused of the practice, etc.  So arguments can arise that are based on misunderstandings of what's really being communicated.

I'm not one to try to sanction the use of certain terms (other than insulting, vulgar or uncivil ones) on this board.  All I can do is to say that I find it ill-advised to toss around any term that's subject to numerous interpretations, meanings and implications without simultaneously delivering a treatise or perhaps including a glossary covering exactly what one means by the term and defining precisely what's intended by the usage of the term.

Perhaps my concern could be alleviated if anyone wishing to talk about tanking refrain from using any form of the term "tanking" itself and, instead, substitute terminology that communicates more specifically what the writer is trying to say.  THIS IS IN NO WAY INTENDED TO BE SOME FORM OF MANDATE; AND THE "TANK" TERM IN ANY FORM WILL NOT SUMMARILY BE DELETED BY THE TANK TROLL.  IT IS ONLY A SUGGESTION INTENDED AS A WAY TO INTRODUCE SOME CLARIFICATION WHERE CLARIFICATION IS NEEDED.

Tank you very much for your consideration.

Sam

mrkleen09 wrote:Opinions are fine....but opinions with no facts behind them, or worse - that follow with a series of backpedaling dont make much sense IMO

In your own words

k_j_88 wrote:Is Danny tanking? At this point, probably.

k_j_88 wrote:I never said he was doing anything this year as a detriment to the team.

So the players arent tanking and Stevens isnt tanking, but Danny is - yet, you dont consider that detrimental to the team?  

k_j_88 wrote:I only said what I said about Danny because there could have been some moves made earlier in the season to bring in a center

Then you admitted, that yeah - on second thought you have no idea if there were any legitimate deals offered to DA.

k_j_88 wrote:  I'm not saying he's doing a bad job this year. I'm just stating that weaknesses were not addressed this year and that he had his own reason for doing so.

Exactly - his own reasons, most of which you are not privy to.  So I guess I go back to your opening statement

k_j_88 wrote:Is Danny tanking? At this point, probably.

 

The only reason why it doesn't make sense to you is because you have taken it out of context from the start.

My original comment was meant to be looked at as a whole -as a more entire basis for what I was thinking about, because just taking separate sentences from it and analyzing them individually can actually affect the interpretation of what I was trying to get at along. The only reason you think it's "backpedaling" is because you misinterpreted the comments that preceded the ones attempting to explain what I originally said. Therefore, I had to go through the process of clarifying things that actually make more sense when the "dirty buzzword" isn't the main focus of what's being read.

Anyway, due to the fact that I would not want to allow my meaning to become skewed any further, I will state this one more time to everyone is clear on what my intentions were from the start.

Danny has made the moves that he thought were best at the time, and mainly those moves have been more geared towards addressing the cap situation as opposed to specific talent to build the team back into contention. Those moves did not address the positional problems. Danny was also not willing to, in his opinion, overpay for a center because the cap situation is ultimately more important for the short term.

And while I generally agree with the moves he has made this year, there have been a few inevitable consequences. The losses that have been piling up, plain and simple, which is a byproduct of not acquiring a center, amongst other more minor things. In all fairness, I didn't think the team would be winning a bunch of games this year anyway and that isn't necessarily the most important goal for this season.

As far as the Stevens-players-Danny dynamic, in the long term the Celtics have a lot of flexibility going forward. Right now, the guys don't enjoy the losing, but because the roster isn't built to win yet, losing a lot of games becomes an eventuality. Right now, I think the team is like 18-19 games under .500. Again, that shouldn't be the mean focus of a transitional year. No one wants to intentionally lose games, but the accumulated losses do have a potential effect for the draft lottery. It's not pretty, but ignoring what's going on doesn't do much, either.



KJ



PS: Sam,


I can't say I'm a fan of the term "tanking," either. It reveals one of the more uglier aspects of professional sports that some teams can be accused of indulging in. And I can also understand your reservations about the term being used here, especially with the seemingly increasing frequency.

I think that going forward as various matters pertaining to this issue are discussed, that everyone should probably attempt to state more clearly what exactly they mean (I understand that I have to do the same as well) and for readers to not necessarily jump to conclusions, either.



KJ