same song, different verse. a question and answer from bill simmons's latest chat on espn.com:
Pat (Mashpee, MA): I've sent this like 10 times and I want your take on this: Would you rather the Celtics sign Magloire, trade for Camby, or do neither?
Bill Simmons: They're not getting Camby. They have no real trade chips other than future picks and Theo Ratliff's contract, and that contract isn't going to have value until February when teams only have to pay a portion of it. They're trying to sell the "we're not done" card and I just don't believe them. If I'm wrong, so be it. But if the Celtics were honestly trying to make a run with Allen-Pierce-Jefferson in 2008, why haven't they been courting any free agents, and what big contracts guys are out there that they can actually get? I love Rondo's potential, but he made about 35 turnovers in the Spurs summer league game - it's going to take him another 2 years to become a consistently good NBA point guard. I just don't get it. It's like two rosters in one roster - three players who can be part of a contender, surrounded by a bunch of young guys who aren't remotely ready to have an impact in the playoffs, and a coach with a .467 winning percentage. it makes me crazy. I can't talk about them.
you can't talk about them? YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT THEM? did i read that right? the "them" in that sentence is referring to the antecedent "celtics," right? this was one of nine celtics related questions in this chat, two of which came after this proclamation. granted, as far as "number of celtics questions" goes, it's a huge improvement on the last chat i critiqued. at the same time it's still a fucking travesty how much he talks about the them. shut. up.
It seems like Simmons has the ability to avoid talking about the Celtics as much as Celizic has the ability to avoid talking about the Yankees.
ReplyDeleteI think we should all just agree with him on that post a few weeks back that the NBA would be better off if the Celtics were awesome every year.