Celts Make Moore Offer
by Jeff Clark on Feb 23, 2009 11:22 AM EST
in Rumors
92 comments
The Celtics are hoping to fill their need for a big man by winning the Mikki Moore sweepstakes.
Moore's agent, Mark Bartelstein, confirmed the team has offered the center a contract, and said several other teams have done the same thing, although he wouldn't divulge their names.
Moore is expected to make his decision today after clearing waivers and becoming an unrestricted free agent. "A lot of teams are very excited about him, so it's a tough decision for Mikki," said Bartelstein.
If Moore opts to go elsewhere, the Celtics would be interested in Oklahoma City center/forward Joe Smith if he is bought out of his contract. Smith is the more talented player, but there is a question whether he will be bought out or whether he even wants to be.
My initial thoughts:
- At the very least, Moore would be an upgrade over O'Bryant, so there's a good starting point.
- The key is the opportunity cost. If we miss out on Joe Smith because of this, that makes this a poor decision. Then again, if we passed on Moore and didn't land Joe Smith, that would be a bad thing as well. Perhaps this is a safer play (bird in the hand...).
- I wonder if this means they got any further signals from the Thunder or Joe Smith about him not being bought out.
- Even if they didn't, maybe this makes sense. To me it sounded like Joe was content to stay in OKC but was going to leave the business side to his agent. What is an agent going to do? Look for the best financial situation available. Cleveland has more money to offer. So maybe the Celts just put 2 and 2 together.
- Even if Moore does sign, we still have another spot open and we could make an offer to Smith.
- Of course if Smith is going to take less money to play with us, I don't think he'd want to fight Mikki Moore for minutes.
- Tim Weisberg offers his thoughts on Mikki Moore. "Moore's greatest talent was growing to seven feet tall."
- The Cavs also might consider Chris Mihm.
- Will the team go after any guards or wing players to ease the load on Paul and Ray?
- Speaking of which, here's your daily Starbury update. They are going to talk again! Okie dokie. Finding it hard to care anymore.
- Lots of questions remain. Should be an interesting week.
Not sure what to make of this rumor out of Cleveland:
The team has been in contact with forward Mikki Moore, who was waived by the Kings last week and is expected to clear waivers Monday. However, it is not believed the Cavs will seriously pursue Moore. Some league executive believe Moore is headed to the Boston Celtics as part of an arrangement tied to the Celtics sending the Kings Sam Cassell and cash in a trade last week. It was somewhat surprising that Moore, who is owed $2 million by the Kings next season and could have been a trade asset over the summer, was waived. That has led some to speculate.
Wages of Wins has a post talking about the Kings bad singings and talks about Moore. Of course, as TrueHoop points out "it all comes down to how much you pay him."
Perhaps no player exemplifies this point more than Mikki Moore. For most of his career, Moore was the quintessential journeyman. He was good enough to make an NBA roster. But never good enough to last or make much of a contribution. Then two years ago he was in the right place at the right time. The New Jersey Nets lost Nenad Krstic for the season and Moore was suddenly given the gift of playing time. Although his per-minute performance was essentially unchanged - a point I made in July of 2007 - Moore’s increased playing time led to an increase in his per-game numbers. Consequently, the Kings decided to give Moore - a player who has labored under a 10-day contract in the NBA — $18 million.
In the first year of this deal, Moore produced 1.2 wins in 2,385 minutes. Moore’s WP48 of 0.024 was a below his career mark of 0.047, but not that far below. Essentially, Moore did what he always did. He just got paid much better.
This year Moore - who is now 33 years old - saw his productivity decline further. As a consequence, the Kings put him the trade market. But after no one stepped forward to take on this contract, the Kings simply cut Moore from the team. Yes this move saves money. But the Kings could have saved even more money if they hadn’t agreed to give Moore this contract in the first place.
0 recs |
92 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Go to another team
Hopefully Cleveland offers their entire MLE.
Then let one of the more talented bigs that might be bought out be bought out and come to Boston.
by Wide Load on Feb 23, 2009 6:41 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Might be bought out
is exactly why the celtics offered the guy who IS bought out the contract..they must know more about whats going on with joe smith then we do…Im pretty sure the lakers and cavs are both interested in Moore as well
by TheAncientRivalry on Feb 23, 2009 6:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That's unfortunate
All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino
by Roy_Hobbs on Feb 23, 2009 6:44 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
buyouts
That’s why you don’t leave your roster hanging on then availability of who will and won’t be bought out. You make a move at the trade deadline.
by celty86 on Feb 23, 2009 6:51 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Indeed.
Moore is better than nothing.
But that’s about it.
by CoachBo on Feb 23, 2009 7:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
hard to do
We have 2 problems with trades:
1. The C’s are bargain shoppers without much that Danny seems willing to part with
2. For better or worse, I think other teams are worried about being on the losing end of a deal with Mr. Executive of the Year Danny Ainge. Regardless of how we see his trade acumen, I think other GMs are wary. Realize that there aren’t any teams (except Minnesota) trying to make us better.
by Thruthelookingglass on Feb 23, 2009 9:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
ugh
I don’t see how we benefit from this signing. I really don’t.
by driz on Feb 23, 2009 7:15 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
You keep him away from Cleveland or the Lakers. If they still want Joe Smith plus an experienced pg, they can waive Giddens, but frankly I hope that does not happen. I don’t want Marbury, not because he’s a cancer in the locker room but because he’s a cancer on the floor. And I don’t want Cassell to return either. We don’t need selfish guards who haven’t played a single minute in 2008-09.
by Brickowski on Feb 23, 2009 7:34 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
If the sign Moore, then end up signing Smith, cut Moore.
by Wide Load on Feb 23, 2009 7:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That's a bad way to do business, though...
… especially with a super-agent like Mark Bartelstein.
All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino
by Roy_Hobbs on Feb 23, 2009 7:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If they end up signing both and Marbury becomes available
Then we’ll probably release Gabe, given that he’s a free agent this coming summer.
by SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on Feb 23, 2009 12:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
As for the pre-arranged thing...
Perhaps some of the cash sent to Sacramento went towards the $2 million owed Moore next season. However, any under-the-table deals to circumvent the salary cap can lead to dire consequences (i.e., the Timberwolves and Joe Smith) so I doubt that there’s anything other than speculation tying the Celts to such a deal.
All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino
by Roy_Hobbs on Feb 23, 2009 8:09 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
there might have been a little posturing
like “if we make this deal, who are you going to cut?” – and knowing that Moore was going to be cut might have greased the wheels a bit, but I’m sure Danny wasn’t dumb enough to put anything in writing
"Would I rather be feared or loved? Easy. Both. I want people to be afraid of how much they love me." Michael Scott
by Jeff Clark on Feb 23, 2009 8:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The rules permit a team to include up to 3 million in a trade, so I do not believe that any circumvention is involved. Cash is fungible and can be used for a buyout or to paint the locker room.
by Brickowski on Feb 23, 2009 10:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
cleveland report is paranoid nonsense
How could out trade with Sac force Moore to sign anywhere he does not want to go? He is now a free agent. What a dumb suspicion.
by footey on Feb 23, 2009 8:36 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Except that Cleveland has its full MLE and can offer Moore more money than everyone else. If Cleveland wants Moore, they can probably get him. But if the Cavs are not expressing interest at this point, then it’s better to move quickly before the Cavs change their minds.
by Brickowski on Feb 23, 2009 10:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I hope any of you guys remember we blew out Sacramento with Moore by 50.
by GreenGrizz on Feb 23, 2009 8:38 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
We also blew out Phoenix a couple of weeks ago with Nash, Shaq, and Stoudemire.
by BudweiserCeltic on Feb 23, 2009 8:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And? Mikki Moore is not a franchise player, what is a role player suppse to do on a team that has no indentity? singlehandedly keep them in the game against the world champs? We blew out OKC with joe smith as well, means nothing.
by TheAncientRivalry on Feb 23, 2009 11:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
ainge has to go after Moore. the worse case is you lose moore AND Smith so at least this way he has a chance at both. I don’t see them signing SMith and Moore though since that takes baby, or Powe or Scal off the floor. I like Moore’s length and defense; SMith is a better scorer and a better all around talent but if he doesn’t want to come here anyhow why waste time on him. Moore’s the guy. Let’s get him and then Marbury and see what happens. Honestly, I wouldn’t be opposed to antoine walker provided he understands his role- play D and rebound and don’t turn the ball over. He was a turnover machine when he was here so I’d be nervous about giving him the ball. Still he knows how to play in the post
by Red2 on Feb 23, 2009 8:59 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
No offense, Red2, but your post doesn't make much sense. Saying "provided [walker] ...
understands his role- play D and rebound and don’t turn the ball over," is like saying, “I’m going to tell that tiger I’m stuck in a cage with not to maul me,” and expecting not to get mauled. Walker is a terrible defender who hasn’t grabbed a rebound in about 7 years and perpetually turns the ball over. It’s who he is. It’s encoded into his DNA.
by Cousin It on Feb 23, 2009 12:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Moore had an excellent season in NJ before he signed iwth sactown. IN our scheme I think he wil be a much more effective player than he was in Sacramento. He
by Red2 on Feb 23, 2009 9:01 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Why does signing Moore preclude the Celtics from landing Joe Smith?
Jeff said that Smith might not want to come here to fight for minutes with Moore but they play two entirely different positions. Moore is a pure 5 and SAmith, while versatile enough to play both the 4 or 5 is easily more a 4. I’ve been saying that Moore is an upgrade at our backup 5 and Smith would be a great upgrade at our 4 position. Moore shouldn’t cost anything more than a vet minimum contract so the rest of the MLE is still available for Smith.
Then if they think they need backcourt help, Gabe Pruitt will either need to sink or swim. He will either produce or be cut to make way for a backup PG.
I truly believe we could see three additions to this team before the playoffs start.
by nickagneta on Feb 23, 2009 9:02 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
1) Because they're pretty much similar players
Two entirely different positions? Perhaps, I don’t see it at all but okay. But defensively they struggle against the same kind of players; offensively their game is also pretty similar. The difference is that Joe Smith is a better player. However I see them as completely interchangeable. Moore can play along Perkins or Powe, for example; he has enough range on his shot.
2) Because there aren’t enough minutes to everyone. If the team signs them both, we’d have 7 bigs – KG, Perkins, BBD, Powe, Scal, Smith and Moore. Three of them would be shut down in the playoffs. What’s the point? I agree with Jeff: I don’t see us getting both of them except if they’re guaranteed minutes. The biggest incentive a guy like Moore has is not the salary but the possibility of showing his skills to the rest of the league in plenty of playoffs minutes…
by cordobes on Feb 23, 2009 10:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Seriously? Seriously!
We are talking about a guy who had one good season with the Nets simply because Jason Kidd was the one passing him the ball. He rode that in to a decent contract and had a decent (but down) season last year because he was given playing time on a bad team. OK, he’s tall, but so skinny that even Kobe can back down on him on the post. This is still the same Mikki Moore that we signed to a 10 day contract 6 years ago, only to replace him with Grant Long. Props to the guy for improving himself, but he would be no different from Powe or Davis. Reason I hope we get Joe Smith is because his mere presence will stabilize the second unit when they are on the floor. I won’t feel any sense of loss if we don’t get Moore. And if we do, all he would be is an upgrade to Patrick O’ Bryant. I don’t see Powe and Davis worrying about their minutes getting diminished, hence I don’t see an improvement.
by afflatus on Feb 23, 2009 9:07 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
i agree with nick
joe smith isn’t going to sign somewhere else because of moore. if he gets out of OKC, his decision will be about playing time, relationships and $$$. we can offer 2 of the 3 — KG and a real need at the 4. moore will play behind baby essentially and may never see the floor. meanwhile, the ‘moore is a stiff’ talk is overkill. as like our 13th man? the guy has been on a terrible team playing ltd minutes. when he DID play on a good team he was pretty effective. he works hard, takes charges (and fouls, yes, but he wouldn’t be the only foul prone celtic), can shoot, and if we recall two years ago he worked very well with a capable PG in NJ. fyi, we have one of those — his name is rajon rondo.
by ssspence on Feb 23, 2009 9:16 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Moore's stats: Last year w/ NJ vs. First year with Sac.
Afflatus,
It is simply not true that Mikki only had good stats in a contract year with Kidd passing to him. His stats with NJ that year were 9.8 points and 5.1 rebounds and his stats the very next year with the Kings were 8.5 points and 6.0 rebounds.
http://www.nba.com/playerfile/mikki_moore/career_stats.html
Smitty
by Smitty77 on Feb 23, 2009 9:24 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
This is about Gasol
Mikki has the length to bother Gasol’s shot, Davis and Powe do not. This signing is as simple as that.
by Michael Anthony on Feb 23, 2009 9:32 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
He has the length, but not the results. Opposing C are shooting around 60% against him.
by Wide Load on Feb 23, 2009 9:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So has Patrick O'Bryant
And tons of others 7fters who are out of the league.
Length matters, but not that much.
by cordobes on Feb 23, 2009 10:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
given our lack of length moore makes sense. watching big baby and leon try and guard true centers is painful, valiant but painful.
signing him does not preclude signing smith. in fact, given clevelands depth in the post and gasol’s dominance of our reserves i think signing both is imperative…
by arctic 3.0 on Feb 23, 2009 9:50 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Moore
I’ve seen him play well at times. He rebounds, blocks shots and can score under the basket. He also brings energy. I don’t think we can pass on him if we can get him, regardless of the Joe Smith situation. If we get both, I think that would be good. But I also think Scals could do the stuff Smith might give us. As mentioned by Micheal Anthony above, I wonder if Scals can guard Gasol. To me, if we play the Lakers, Gasol is the difference maker. We do need someone other than KG to guard him. Perk can do a decent job if he’s allowed to force him out of his comfort zone, but he can easily shoot over Perk down low. We also need someone who can guard LeBron. Don’t know if Smith can do this. I would love to see Scals have a go at it.
"I don't come to play, I come to WIN"--Larry Bird
by TrueGreen on Feb 23, 2009 9:55 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
How bad is the big man market if there is actually a Mikki Moore sweepstakes.
by NoraG1 on Feb 23, 2009 9:59 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
better than it was this summer..
when it was between POB and David Harrison
by ssspence on Feb 23, 2009 10:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Obviously the right move to make right now
Indeed its as simple as the bird in the hand. Ive said it before but all I can add is that I saw him play probably 30 times last year and he was better than decent. He can shoot,he is quick, and he hustles and he can jump. The stats you guys are referencing matter, but he will fit well with us. None of this means he is better than smith, he isn’t. But who knows what was going to happoen there.
Oh yeah Chris andersen should have been signed…and don’t get me started on Tony and Posey blah blah
by wahz on Feb 23, 2009 10:08 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Price Comparison
Confucius say If Ainge get Mikki cheaper than Cleveland offer, Celtics will have gotten Moore for less.
by charlie chan on Feb 23, 2009 10:09 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
brilliant as always Charlie
far too few posts from you.
by slamtheking on Feb 23, 2009 10:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
agreed, always a bright spot and light moment in the comments...
thanks, charlie.
-sw
Manuel Aristides Ramirez is the greatest hitter I've ever seen.
by Steve Weinman on Feb 23, 2009 10:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
About Mikki Moore and shot-blocking
Moore is not a good shot-blocker. Never was and never will be.
MM has career averages of 0.6 blocks per game, 1.1 per 36 minutes and a Blk% of 2.3. And he has been declining, so this season he’s averaging 0.3, 0.7 and 1.4. These are not even average numbers.
Just for the sake of comparison, Joe Smith, who isn’t a shot-blocker either, averages 0.7 per game, 1.4 per 36, 2.8 blk% this season – basically doubling Moore’s numbers.
Scot Pollard averaged 0.7 per game, 1.5 per 36, 2.9 blk%. Even the extremely undersized Leon Powe is currently a better shot-blocker than Mikki Moore.
by cordobes on Feb 23, 2009 10:35 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I think Smith goes to Cleveland
And this is our best move. Mikki Moore is better than POB and he fills our biggest need. Height with a pulse off the bench. Though Cleveland gets the better player, we get the bigger upgrade in bench talent. And our starters are the best in the league.
by GreenBalls on Feb 23, 2009 10:49 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
If Cleveland wants Joe Smith, that’s fine with me. I’d rather have him on the floor than Varejao or even JJ Hickson.
by Brickowski on Feb 23, 2009 12:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Funny thing is, I was reading a Cleveland board, and they were saying the same things about it being fine with them if Smith comes here and keeps Baby, Powe off the floor, which I’m inclined to agree with.
I see Smith as a 4, and I think Baby and Powe are mostly okay at playing the 4s that aren’t super long. Seeing as our greater need is against the real long guys, I think Moore might bother guys like Gasol more than Smith would, even if Smith might be the better player against most 4s. At this point we are fine tuning for need.
I’m good with either one, though I think Moore is the better need fit. I think it’s smart for Danny to go for the bird in hand.
by Mencius on Feb 23, 2009 12:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Blocked shots are overrated
I firmly believe that blocks are overrated. I firmly believe that Mikki can better contest Gasol’s shots than Powe. Powe plays smaller than he actually is vs. tall gifted offensive players.
Besides, we already have Perk and KG (when he gets healthy) that are superb shot blockers.
by Smitty77 on Feb 23, 2009 10:54 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
the guy is 6" taller than powe
yes, you need skill to play. but you can’t teach size.
by ssspence on Feb 23, 2009 11:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Waived by The Kings? Waived by the Kings?
Then you must be a 7ft Queen or a big piece of “Soft KandI”
Is it Soup Yet?
by Master Po on Feb 23, 2009 11:10 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Master, the Kings are losing money and the owners own Casinos which are losing money
its about that.
anyway I hate to be arguing FOR this guy. But its an insurance policy.. If we knew we could get Smith we would be waiting. Is that hard to understand for everyone?? I don’t get it
by wahz on Feb 23, 2009 11:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I tend to agree
O’Bryant < Moore < Smith
but if no Smith, then Moore is more better
"Would I rather be feared or loved? Easy. Both. I want people to be afraid of how much they love me." Michael Scott
by Jeff Clark on Feb 23, 2009 11:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Moore Better Blues
Sadly I think you’re right, Jeff. With KG and Smith being friends, and Danny being Danny, I have to think we’re on the inside track to know what is happening with Smith…and if we’re getting (Less Isn’t) Moore, that’s probably a good sign that Smith won’t be bought out (or is inclined to go elsewhere if he is).
by MattD on Feb 23, 2009 11:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
OK - I get it
But if she can’t out rebound PO, or have glimpses in which he looks like Theo Ratliff swatting flies, then I hope Queen Mikki spends most of her time on the royal green throne called the bench
Is it Soup Yet?
by Master Po on Feb 23, 2009 11:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Mikki will do a better job getting out on Big Z than Baby would.
and AGAIN, this only about having a longer big. Its not really a replacement for Powe. More like for Baby on a slender long big. Yesterdy Baby did a nice job on Shaq. No surprise. He did better than Mikki would. But if Cle strolls out Big Z, Varezo, and Wallace, we counter with Mikki, KG, and PP if perk is in foul trouble, or Mikki, Powe and KG. It helps with some tough matchups. anyway, I still hope we get Smith and a wing and dump Mikki if that happens
by wahz on Feb 23, 2009 12:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
sign both Smith and Moore
Let’s sign them both. Give us a huge bench and energy players.
Take our chances with Pruitt, House, Rondo guards.
I am tired of waiting on Starbury!
"it makes me sick to see a guy watch it go out of bounds" -Larry Bird
by CelticfaninArk on Feb 23, 2009 11:25 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
length
Garnett handles Gasol when he’s on the court. When he’s not, look for Moore, I guess. How many minutes a game are we talking about? Powe and BB maybe smaller but they should take it right at Pau and try to get him in foul trouble. I’d rather see a true center come here than another long four.
by celty86 on Feb 23, 2009 12:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
This would be a solid move
Moore isn’t more than a 10 minute a game player at this point, but he does give Doc another big man option off the bench.
Baby, when he’s hitting his jumper, is probably equivalent to Joe Smith. There’s no equivalent to Moore on the Cs bench. Thus, he represents an upgrade, albeit a small one.
For those grousing that Moore only had good years with Jason Kidd (which seems to be an incorrect claim, btw), you’ll be relieved to know we have this kid named Rajon Rondo who’s already better than Kidd was during those years. I expect Rondo to breathe some life into Moore, especially if they develop enough chemistry to start doing some alley-oops.
Marbury is still the proverbial ‘rug that’s ties the room together’—the room that is our mismatched collection of bench players.
I guess we could sign all three—Moore, Smith, and Marbury, if we wanted to. Gabe Pruitt hasn’t been bold enough to lock up his place on the team going forward (though I’ll keep cheering for him to do so—he’s a good kid with a great looking jumper)…and he can be easily released…
by SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on Feb 23, 2009 1:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Doesn't make sense
What exactly can Moore do better Smith? Nothing. They’re similar players, the difference is that Smith is better. If there’s an equivalent player to Smith on the C’s roster, there must be an equivalent one to Moore.
And the reason his year with the Nets looks so good is because he shot an abnormal % of his jump-shots and he played more minutes at a faster pace. Other than that, it was his regular underwhelming year.
by cordobes on Feb 23, 2009 2:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Intentional obfuscation as usual, qdoba
Well, let’s see, other than Garnett we don’t have another 7-footer on the team. Moore would be our 2nd. Therefore, “there’s no equivalent to Moore on the Cs bench.” He’ll give Doc another option off the bench, which is nice.
Re: Smith v. Moore Smith is the better player, but they are different in other ways as well. Smith is 6’9" and rather plodding, ground-bound, and methodical. He’s a great jump shooter and pretty good scorer if you run plays for him. Moore, on the other hand, isn’t much of a jump shooter (though he does have one) or isn’t much of a scorer, but he’s much more fast and athletic than Smith. You don’t have to run plays for him because his game is based purely off hustle. If he gets into one of his hustle-runs, he can get you a couple dunks, offensive rebounds, or blocks in a short period of time. He’s also an asset on the break, so coupled with Rondo he could get some easy buckets in that manner.
And, if Baby’s hitting his jumper consistently, he’ll give you about what Joe Smith does…now, I admit that’s a big IF, but still Baby and Joe Smith are similar players, other than the fact that Baby probably plays better defense on centers.
I’d rather we take Smith if they were both available—because he is the better player—but Moore isn’t terrible either and he’s available for sure. As I mentioned above, Marbury is the rug that ties everything together. Smith/Moore are of lesser importance.
by SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on Feb 23, 2009 2:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The problem
and a very common one is that people make this reasoning:
Moore is athletic therefore he can grab rebounds and get some putbacks and block some shots.
He can’t do none of those things better than Smith. He’s a poor rebounder, not better than Davis. He’s a poor shot-blocker. He’s not as good finishing garbage shots as Smith. He may be 1 or 2 inches taller than Smith, but he plays much smaller than his size. Smith is just much better than Moore defending 7 footers (or players of any length).
Smith is also a consumate pro, who plays very hard. The difference is that he has some talent, some hands to go along with that. Moore… not so much.
by cordobes on Feb 23, 2009 2:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
look, no offense but the threads polls show VERY FEW people want Moore over Smith
so you can talk all you want about what people are reasoning about Moore and his talents. Its not about that. What they are ACTUALLY reasoning is that he’s available and Smith isn’t.
If you want to wait for Smith and lose everyone else and smith when he isn’t bought out, then that is what you are saying you are for: taking that chance. Some of us are saying we don’t want to take that chance. Myself, I am can’t get over that we are even at this point. It should have never happened. But DA is the gm and I am a fan, so i am stuck with his decisions and have no illusions otherwise
by wahz on Feb 23, 2009 2:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Is only that what they're reasoning? Really?
Read through this thread, the previous ones about this issue and the forums.
Again, if someone think Moore is a better fit defending long centers because he’s taller than Smith, I’ll say he isn’t.
As I’ve said before, I’m not opposed to sign Moore. He’s better than nothing at all. However, he’s a mediocre player compared to Joe Smith and in no way, shape or form a shot blocker, a rebounder or a better fit for this team.
by cordobes on Feb 23, 2009 3:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You don't communicate in good faith
You intentionally misunderstand what a poster is trying communicate, and then attack them for something you intentionally misunderstand. Why? I know you’re smart, but your posts are ridiculous in that regard.
Anyway, yes, Smith is the better player. Nobody’s arguing that fact. But Moore has some strengths too and they happen to match up with what the Cs don’t have. Smith, while arguably better than Baby, represents almost the same skill set. So, if you add Smith, you only are really adding that little difference between what Baby does and what Smith does. On the other hand, if you add Moore, you actually add a little more because he represents something the bench doesn’t currently have—a hustling, active 7 footer. So, even though Moore is the lesser player, he might actually add more to the Cs given their current roster because he doesn’t replicate anyone they currently have…
by SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on Feb 23, 2009 2:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I understand your point, but you're wrong on your assessment of their skillset
But Moore has some strengths too and they happen to match up with what the Cs don’t have
Like what? Once again, what are those Moore strengths Smith misses? The 7ft? An aditional inch? Basketball players don’t rebound with the top of their heads. Smith is the better rebounder and the better one defending 7fters.
So, even though Moore is the lesser player, he might actually add more to the Cs given their current roster because he doesn’t replicate anyone they currently have…
Moore and Smith are much more similar players than you seem to think. If you believe Smith duplicates Baby, so does Moore – this is not hard to comprehend.
by cordobes on Feb 23, 2009 3:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Good faith, cordobes
Did you read that part about intentionally misunderstanding people and then attacking them for what you intentionally misunderstood? ‘Cause you’re doing it again…if you ‘understood my point,’ you wouldn’t have written what you wrote….
Why do you start each of your posts saying Smith is better than Moore at this or that? We AGREE on that or this or whatever—Smith’s the better player.
But they’re not as similar as you think (and why would they be, if as you’ve asserted countless times, Smith is so much better than Moore). I’m saying Moore’s lesser talents actually fit in better on the Cs than do Smith’s. Moore is a hustle player; Smith is a skill player. Smith is a PF, Moore is a skinny center. We don’t have any skinny 7 footers on the bench….but we already have 3 backup power forwards. Smith’s addition would add to an area of strength, while Moore’s addition would add to any of weakness. AND—given the fact that Moore is available and Smith might not be….well, that makes this signing quite reasonable.
by SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on Feb 23, 2009 4:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, as you seem unable to explain what are those talents that Moore has and Smith lacks that fit our needs – except that he has 2 more inches at the top of his head… but why does that matter? Makes him better defending taller players? No. Makes him a better rebounder? No. Makes him a better shot-blocker? No. A better finisher at the rim, maybe? Also negative. – what’s exactly your point?
Just say what those skills are. It’s easy. What exactly can Moore do better on the floor of a basketball court than Smith? The body type? Being skinny? 2 inches taller in terms of height? For that reason, we should have kept POB.
I bet in your next response you’ll keep on stressing that Moore is a better fit for our needs because he’s as skinny 7 footer who hustles….
Smith is also a hustle guy. I don’t see Moore hustling more than Smith. The fact that Smith is more talented is not a reason to pretend he hustles less than guys like Moore.
by cordobes on Feb 23, 2009 4:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
GOOD FAITH
Communicating with you is a worthless proposition.
by SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on Feb 23, 2009 4:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
As I predicted
You’ll never explain what are those talents that Moore has and Smith lacks that fit our needs.
Anyway,if you believe that Moore is equivalent to Smith as long as he’s hitting the jumper (in spite of being a worse rebounder, defender, shot-blocker, more turnover prone, etc.), you surely see something nobody else seems to see.
by cordobes on Feb 23, 2009 4:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is exactly what I'm talking about...
You might want to call them ad hominem attacks, but they actually pertain to way you communicate and thus have everything to do with what you’re saying.
As I’ve said, you intentionally misconstrue what a poster says and then attack that poster for what you intentionally misconstrue. For example, you write:
“if you believe that Moore is equivalent to Smith as long as he’s hitting the jumper (in spite of being a worse rebounder, defender, shot-blocker, more turnover prone, etc.), you surely see something nobody else seems to see.”
Well, you know full well I don’t believe that. I’ve repeated numerous times that Smith is the better player. But your MO is to misconstrue and then attack the misunderstanding you created. That shows a lack of good faith. And that’s not a personal attack—that’s just the way you write…and it’s a perfectly appropriate answer to your repeated and intentional attempts to misunderstand and attack what I’m saying.
Getting back to what we’re talking about, don’t you think it’s possible to be a lesser player but a better fit on a particular team? Because I’m saying that while Moore is a lesser player than Smith, he is actually a better fit than Smith because what Moore does well (hustle, occasional jumper, put backs, getting on the break, team spirit, being 7 foot) lines up with what the Celtics lack at the back up center spot. Smith in someways duplicates what we already have…while Moore supplements what we currently lack…and so, given the fact that Moore is available and Smith is not, it makes the signing of Moore a reasonable and good move.
by SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on Feb 23, 2009 4:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Getting back to what we’re talking about, don’t you think it’s possible to be a lesser player but a better fit on a particular team?
Of course. As I’ve said, I understand the concept – I defended several times Corey Maggette would be a bad fit on this team.
But that happens when players have diverse skill-sets and what the lesser player does best is what the team needs more.
However, I can’t think of a single thing Moore does better than Smith except “being 7 foot”. But that’s not a basketball trait, it’s merely a physical trait that may or may not translate to actual basketball skills. In Moore’s case, it doesn’t: can he defend 7fters better than Smith because he’s 2 inches taller? No. Can he rebound better? No. Etc. etc.
If you believe the team need those skills, Joe Smith is the better fit, because he’s better executing those skills.
The difference in terms of quality is just too big when you have two players with very similar games (mid-range jump-shooters, energy, difficult guarding stronger bodies, good drawing charges… but then Smith is a better, more polished offensive player, better rebounder, etc.)
by cordobes on Feb 23, 2009 7:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How about this one, cordobes?
Moore can blitz the pick-and-roll better than Smith. Moore will be better in the Cs team defense as a result.
Moore can run the floor better too…
By the way, in my opinion, Moore is a better fit because he doesn’t duplicate what we already have on the roster. True, Smith is better across the board (except when blitzing the pick and roll), but with Baby, Scal, and Powe already on the team, there aren’t many minutes to go around for them all and one or two of them won’t play if Smith comes aboard. Conversely, with Moore on the team, only Baby’s minutes at the 5 will be impacted, but overall we’ll still get the best of everything we have on the roster (since Baby isn’t always the best matchup at 5). Basically, we’ve given Doc more options to mix and match with now that we’ve signed Moore and that kind of flexibility will be boon come playoff time.
I agree with you that ‘when players have diverse skill-sets’ sometimes ‘what the lesser play does best is what the team needs more.’ I just think you’re underestimating Moore’s skill set or over-estimating Smith’s. They are not quite as similar as you characterize them. Moore’s spirit, enthusiasm, hustle-style of play, combined with excellent quickness for a 7 footer are things which Smith cannot replicate and that’s why I think he’s a better fit, given what our roster has and doesn’t have…
by SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on Feb 24, 2009 12:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He's a better fit than Smith...
That’s all I’m saying. But feel free to create misunderstandings and argue against what you think I said if that’s what you want to do. Just don’t act surprised anymore when nobody wants to talk to you…
by SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on Feb 23, 2009 4:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, he's a better fith than Smith
When somebody asks you to explain why, you just start making ad hominem comments and personal attacks. ;)
by cordobes on Feb 23, 2009 4:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm trying to help you, cordobes
And I’ve explained multiple times why he’s a better fit
by SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on Feb 23, 2009 4:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah
Because he’s a skinny 7 footer. However, that doesn’t make him a better rebounder, defender, shot-blocker, shot alterer or finisher than smaller players.
Personally, I don’t care a lot about the aesthetical aspect of the roster.
Hustle? He doesn’t hustle more than Davis, Powe or Smith, so that’s a moot point.
by cordobes on Feb 23, 2009 4:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
BBD and Powe are better than Smith
When is the last time you saw Joe Smith go to the floor for a loose ball? I’ll take either of the two young guys over Smith.
by Brickowski on Feb 23, 2009 1:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
IF he
can block shots and get d-bounds then do it. Frankly, he seems soft.
by The Real Large James 2 on Feb 23, 2009 1:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I like him
He has the same range and rebounding as Joe, but can block shots.
Guy looks like a real bad attitude guy though…
by rickyfan3.0... on Feb 23, 2009 1:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
huh?
you are kidding right?
the one thing I’ve seen from Kings fans is that they liked him as a person even if they didn’t like him as a player for the kind of money he was getting
http://www.sactownroyalty.com/2009/2/19/764953/really-i-m-most-saddened-b
"Would I rather be feared or loved? Easy. Both. I want people to be afraid of how much they love me." Michael Scott
by Jeff Clark on Feb 23, 2009 2:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Good guy, bad shot-blocker
He can’t block shots. Powe is a better shot-blocker.
Great pro with a great attitude though, AFAIK.
by cordobes on Feb 23, 2009 2:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
C.R.E.A.M.
Cash rules – I am more and more convinced that Joe Smith and his agent will only take a buyout if they are convinced they can get a good deal of money from the Cavs to make it worth picking up and changing teams again
I am less and less optimistic that Joe would take less money just to play with his buddy KG
"Would I rather be feared or loved? Easy. Both. I want people to be afraid of how much they love me." Michael Scott
by Jeff Clark on Feb 23, 2009 2:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I’d rather have Moore anyways. He is a true Center and a better defender.
I don’t think Smith has the size or grit to play Center. Sure, he is an upgrade over our current backup PF spot, but that isn’t where we need the help.
by D Dub on Feb 23, 2009 2:58 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Were getting Moore instead of Smith?
Celts season over :(
by Marqui on Feb 23, 2009 3:25 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Is it me, or does Moore look like Acie Earl?
by braz on Feb 23, 2009 6:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on CelticsBlog
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
