PDA

View Full Version : So how do you guys feel about Paul Pierce...



bulletproof
06-11-2004, 02:12 PM
And giving up Al and Jon to get him?

Suaveness
06-11-2004, 02:16 PM
NO NO NO.

bulletproof
06-11-2004, 02:20 PM
NO NO NO.

WHY? WHY? WHY?

Bball
06-11-2004, 02:20 PM
For those that vote 'no' I am curious as to why? Not disagreeing with you, just wondering what the thought process is.

I haven't made up my mind one way or another on this.

-Bball

TheSauceMaster
06-11-2004, 02:20 PM
NO NO NO.

:stupid:

Plus I think he's overpaid , if your gonna go for him , why not get Tmac , about the same pay scale :P

Oh and I think he's a Ballhog also :unimpressed:

bulletproof
06-11-2004, 02:24 PM
NO NO NO.

:stupid:

Plus I think he's overpaid , if your gonna go for him , why not get Tmac , about the same pay scale :P

Oh and I think he's a Ballhog also :unimpressed:

You're not gonna get T-Mac with Al and Bender. That would at least require Ron.

Suaveness
06-11-2004, 02:24 PM
The guy isn't even that great a shooter. He gets his points by putting up bad shots, and a lot of them.

MarionDeputy
06-11-2004, 02:25 PM
NO NO NO.

I agree. Paul Pierce has demonstrated that he feels he needs to be the first scoring option. There is no way he would want to play here and play second fiddle to JO or even third to Ronnie.

In the words of Kosmo Kramer: "He's a chucker"

Suaveness
06-11-2004, 02:26 PM
NO NO NO.

:stupid:

Plus I think he's overpaid , if your gonna go for him , why not get Tmac , about the same pay scale :P

Oh and I think he's a Ballhog also :unimpressed:

You're not gonna get T-Mac with Al and Bender. That would at least require Ron.


I don't want Tmac either if we have to give up Ron. No thanks.

bulletproof
06-11-2004, 02:30 PM
The guy isn't even that great a shooter. He gets his points by putting up bad shots, and a lot of them.

T. McGrady.......28.0 ppg; 41.7 FG%; 33.9 3P%; 79.6 FT%; 5.5 apg

P. Pierce...........22.9 ppg; 40.2 FG%; 29.9 3P%; 81.9 FT%; 5.1 apg


Not too dissimilar, my friend.

Hicks
06-11-2004, 02:32 PM
If you can get Pierce without giving up Artest, you have to at least think about it.

Paul's outside shot doesn't thrill me %-wise, but we all know that he can flat out light people up, and is terrific and scoring the ball by driving as well as pull-up jumpers.

I think this could be an effective, balanced starting 5:

Tinsley
Pierce
Artest
O'Neal
Foster

JO first, Paul second, Ron 3rd, Tinsley and Foster get the leftovers.

You think defenses respect Reggie out on the floor? Wait 'till they see Paul. Guarantee you they don't leave him open EVER.

Plus he's terrific at attacking defenses and drawing fouls, and he never has Ron Artest defending him. :devil:

I'm officially OK with this trade. :D

TheSauceMaster
06-11-2004, 02:32 PM
You're not gonna get T-Mac with Al and Bender. That would at least require Ron.

I was talking Salary wise , not what it would take to get player A or Player B
If I was gonna pay someone 14 mill and some change it sure would be tmac before Pierce .

TheSauceMaster
06-11-2004, 02:33 PM
I agree. Paul Pierce has demonstrated that he feels he needs to be the first scoring option. There is no way he would want to play here and play second fiddle to JO or even third to Ronnie.

In the words of Kosmo Kramer: "He's a chucker"

Exactly

Suaveness
06-11-2004, 02:36 PM
The guy isn't even that great a shooter. He gets his points by putting up bad shots, and a lot of them.

T. McGrady.......28.0 ppg; 41.7 FG%; 33.9 3P%; 79.6 FT%; 5.5 apg

P. Pierce...........22.9 ppg; 40.2 FG%; 29.9 3P%; 81.9 FT%; 5.1 apg


Not too dissimilar, my friend.

The shots PP takes are not very good ones. He just throws them up there. They never look good. T-Mac's shots look a little better.

Snickers
06-11-2004, 02:39 PM
Al and Jon for Pierce....

I'd do it.

He can play 2-guard, provided we have Ron and Freddie to handle the quicker guys. He will learn to play within the team, or he'll sit his *** on the bench until he does. He is a great shooter, and a great scorer, but his %s are low because he has to shoot so much on a lousy Boston team.

He can rebound, he can hit the three [even though his percentage is low], and he's not the worst defender in the world. He'd give us 3 solid all-stars, and a true inside-outside offensive attack....

Boston might actually go for it too....

bulletproof
06-11-2004, 02:47 PM
Al and Jon for Pierce....

I'd do it.

He can play 2-guard, provided we have Ron and Freddie to handle the quicker guys. He will learn to play within the team, or he'll sit his *** on the bench until he does. He is a great shooter, and a great scorer, but his %s are low because he has to shoot so much on a lousy Boston team.

He can rebound, he can hit the three [even though his percentage is low], and he's not the worst defender in the world. He'd give us 3 solid all-stars, and a true inside-outside offensive attack....

Boston might actually go for it too....

Yep. They just might.

ChicagoJ
06-11-2004, 03:05 PM
I said this last week in your other thread on SGs:

I wouldn't touch Pierce, well the only way I'd do that is if Ron was traded for him. Can you imagine the wrestling match between those two ballhogs fighting over that ball while Rick is screaming at both of them to give it to JO? :o

SkipperZ
06-11-2004, 03:06 PM
ive always felt Pierce was very overrated...

thats just my opinion from watching him play... what the hell happened to hit outside shot the last couple years?

The way I see it, we could get Livingston (via the Bulls) for Harrington. I would rather have a veteran player, but it would have to be someone I thought was better than Livingston. TMAC is one of those players, and Paul Pierce is not.

Hicks
06-11-2004, 03:07 PM
Al and Jon for Pierce....

I'd do it.

He can play 2-guard, provided we have Ron and Freddie to handle the quicker guys. He will learn to play within the team, or he'll sit his *** on the bench until he does. He is a great shooter, and a great scorer, but his %s are low because he has to shoot so much on a lousy Boston team.

He can rebound, he can hit the three [even though his percentage is low], and he's not the worst defender in the world. He'd give us 3 solid all-stars, and a true inside-outside offensive attack....

Boston might actually go for it too....

Yep. They just might.

:pray:

Hicks
06-11-2004, 03:08 PM
I'd almost bet money Paul wouldn't look as selfish here. Not with Rick, Larry, Donnie, Reggie, an JO in his ear. He knows how good we are, and how much better we'd be with him, and that came from playing together as a team. I think he'd buy into it with all the winning we'd be doing. I really do.

Suaveness
06-11-2004, 03:10 PM
I'd almost bet money Paul wouldn't look as selfish here. Not with Rick, Larry, Donnie, Reggie, an JO in his ear. He knows how good we are, and how much better we'd be with him, and that came from playing together as a team. I think he'd buy into it with all the winning we'd be doing. I really do.

Some people carry bad traits with them wherever they go. There is no guarentee that what they say does anything, if they say anything at all. Because he is an "all-star".

TheSauceMaster
06-11-2004, 03:11 PM
I would rather take the Houston Trade , it addresses more than just one place we need help .

Unclebuck
06-11-2004, 03:11 PM
I must admit I have been all over the map on Pierce. One minute I like him the next I don't.

He was a disgrace in the World Games two years ago.

But he is a good playert, very tough mboth physically and mentally. Plays every game, if he gets hurt he plays through pain.

His defense is underrated, though he is not a great athlete, he has good hands and can guard people and I think he could be even better if he does not have to score 25 pts a night.

One thing I worry about though. Practice with Artest guarding him every day. he might become rusty because ron shuts him down.

dipperdunk
06-11-2004, 03:14 PM
If Ainge did that deal the fans in Boston would hang him outside the Fleet Center. ;) You won't get Pierce without giving up Artest; Boston would get much better offers then Al and Bender if they shopped Pierce around the league.

TheSauceMaster
06-11-2004, 03:16 PM
If Ainge did that deal the fans in Boston would hang him outside the Fleet Center.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Snickers
06-11-2004, 03:20 PM
I must admit I have been all over the map on Pierce. One minute I like him the next I don't.

He was a disgrace in the World Games two years ago.

But he is a good playert, very tough mboth physically and mentally. Plays every game, if he gets hurt he plays through pain.

His defense is underrated, though he is not a great athlete, he has good hands and can guard people and I think he could be even better if he does not have to score 25 pts a night.

One thing I worry about though. Practice with Artest guarding him every day. he might become rusty because ron shuts him down.

Yeah, he was the biggest ballhog on a team full of horrible ballhogs in the Games. If somebody mentioned a trade like this around that time.... heh, let's just say I wouldn't have responded in a positive manner.

But I eventually came to the conclusion that being essentially the only option in Boston is what made him that way. He is a great offensive player, and I agree with Hicks that I think he could fit into the system here, knowing that doing so would help us win a heck of a lot of games.

There are some players who jack up 30 shots a night because they want big numbers, and there are some who do it because that's the only way their team will have a chance to win. I think Pierce is in that second category.

Slick Pinkham
06-11-2004, 03:29 PM
I have mixed feelings on Pierce too.

Immensely talented.
Not a leader.
Complains a lot.
Poor shot selection.
Very good defensively when he wants to be.

Boston fans would think they were getting robbed, and would portray the trade as "an all-star for two bench guys"

so it would be very bad PR for Ainge.

It's hard to get over the observation that we'd have 3 all-stars at or BEFORE their prime.

I guess I'd do it, but Boston won't.

Fool
06-11-2004, 03:42 PM
I hear the "he makes T-mac money, but isn't T-mac".

The upside is that he wouldn't command what a T-Mac trade would and his GM is an idiot. Of course, that idiot has plans of building the team around him so he isn't available anyway. I would however think he would be just as effective as T-mac on this team and would definately make them a great deal better.

Bball
06-11-2004, 04:55 PM
I'm pondering this and I am leaning toward doing it. I think we should've gotten rid of Bender a while ago. I also think we need to trade Al.

Pierce in the World Games worries me a bit more than his NBA play (the ballhogging people talk about).

I wonder if some people weighing in against this deal would've also been against taking Rasheed?

If it makes the 'team' better then I am all for it.

I am also one of the people who thinks depth is over-rated. Losing Al and Bender isn't going to bother me much if it makes the starting lineup better.

-Bball

Hicks
06-11-2004, 05:16 PM
Yeah, I'm with bball. This trade would certainly make us a better, more dangerous team.

Arcadian
06-11-2004, 06:39 PM
I'd lean towards doing it.

I believe Pierce gets a bad rap on his shooting % and number of shots. He has to take than may shots because there are no other scores on the team which in turn effects his %.

But Pierce does need the ball in his hands so I would worry about how well he and Ron co-existed. I'm sure Ron thinks he is just as good offensively as Paul.

bulletproof
06-11-2004, 07:47 PM
I'd lean towards doing it.

I believe Pierce gets a bad rap on his shooting % and number of shots. He has to take than may shots because there are no other scores on the team which in turn effects his %.

But Pierce does need the ball in his hands so I would worry about how well he and Ron co-existed. I'm sure Ron thinks he is just as good offensively as Paul.

You're assuming that Ron would be here even if we made this trade. What if he wasn't?

Hicks
06-11-2004, 07:48 PM
I'd lean towards doing it.

I believe Pierce gets a bad rap on his shooting % and number of shots. He has to take than may shots because there are no other scores on the team which in turn effects his %.

But Pierce does need the ball in his hands so I would worry about how well he and Ron co-existed. I'm sure Ron thinks he is just as good offensively as Paul.

You're assuming that Ron would be here even if we made this trade. What if he wasn't?

If Paul's here, but Ron's not, we took a step backwords on our journey to the title.

Arcadian
06-11-2004, 07:51 PM
I like Pierce and would be happy to have him as a Pacer. Jon and Al would seem to be a fair price for him regardless of whether or not Ron is here.

beast23
06-11-2004, 11:07 PM
Good idea, BP.

PP had very little help this season. He was expected to do it all, and he did his best to deliver.

I would urge those of you who are critical of Pierce to consider throwing his stats of the last two seasons out the window. He's young and there is no reason to believe he could not perform more like what he did earlier in his career, assuming that he would have a lot more support at both ends of the floor and off the bench from his new team.

If you look at his earlier years, he posted FG% 44% 3FG% 40% FT% 80% Steals 1.75+/- and RB 6.5.

I'll take those stats, because that's more in line with what I would expect to deliver in a lineup that would also have JO and Artest, as well as Tinsley to deliver him the ball.

While you're at it BP, any way you could get the Celts to include Blount in a sign-and-trade if we throw in Brezec, our #29 and a bag of Doritos?

kerosene
06-12-2004, 02:31 AM
My only gripe with Pierce is that he evidently acted like such a jerk on Team USA that he's not being invited back. I'm pretty sure if he was in a better environment than he is now (where Ainge has just decimated the team and atmosphere they had) and didn't have to be the only weapon he wouldn't pout as much and would probably be a better team player.

grace
06-12-2004, 01:17 PM
Personally, I can't stand him. I think he'd be a malcontent by Christmas. I'm also afraid Ron would become more of a head case with him around. More importantly why would anyone want him around when he couldn't hit any shots when he and JO were shooting that shoe commericial a couple years ago? :unimpressed:

kerosene
06-12-2004, 02:21 PM
Auerbach talks to the Celtics' owners regularly, including Wyc Grousbeck; to Danny Ainge, the executive director for basketball operations (a 1981 Celtics draft pick); and to the new coach, Doc Rivers. He flies to Boston for the N.B.A. draft and other events.

Rivers said: "He told me, `You've got to get an instigator because the team's too soft.' He said: `Get someone rugged. You were rugged. You tried to beat us.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/12/sports/basketball/12RED.html

Snickers
06-12-2004, 02:44 PM
Auerbach talks to the Celtics' owners regularly, including Wyc Grousbeck; to Danny Ainge, the executive director for basketball operations (a 1981 Celtics draft pick); and to the new coach, Doc Rivers. He flies to Boston for the N.B.A. draft and other events.

Rivers said: "He told me, `You've got to get an instigator because the team's too soft.' He said: `Get someone rugged. You were rugged. You tried to beat us.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/12/sports/basketball/12RED.html

Good thing the Pacers don't have anybody rugged they'd want. :D