Doc to return

[mikiemo83]

per Steve Bulpett (sp?) on 98.5

[mikiemo83]

no extention but a raise given to Doc


Source: Rivers staying
Doc Rivers is not opting out.

The Celtic coach will be returning to the club for at least the remaining season on his contract, a source close to Rivers indicated moments ago.

The fact Rivers is staying on would seem to be an encouraging sign that the Celtics’ main players will also be back for another season.

Rivers was seriously considering a sabbatical from coaching on the grounds that a break would allow him to spend time with his family after six years apart coaching the Celts.

He had also gone through a trying year as the club dealt with injuries and moved toward its future in point guard Rajon Rondo.

The Celtics’ key players have lobbied Rivers to stay, but it was thought he’d take the opportunity to leave if the team was about to go into a rebuilding phase.

If he’s hanging around, it likely means he has at least a fair indication that they might be, as well.
http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/sports/celtics/index.php/2010/06/30/source-rivers-staying/

[babalu87]

They're getting LeBron

[3 Point Stan]

I'm pretty shocked by this. Thought for sure he'd ride off into the sunset.

Babs, Lebron's not coming here... but Ray Allen might be back.

[mikiemo83]

I'm pretty shocked by this. Thought for sure he'd ride off into the sunset.

Babs, Lebron's not coming here... but Ray Allen might be back.Doc gets a raise to say 6'5 million, he takes two years offand needs atleast 7 to return....it works out for him and he shows loyalty to players for the future

[midgar8784]

I'm pretty shocked by this. Thought for sure he'd ride off into the sunset.

Babs, Lebron's not coming here... but Ray Allen might be back.

Pierce might be back too. Now if we can get some kid that can block shots and rebound thats not a PG we will be set.

[babalu87]

The only reason Pierce opted out was to try and get a 4 year 60 large deal

He is gone if thats what he is looking for in Boston

[O.Z.O.]

They're getting LeBron

rather do it this way-

subtract-

Ray Allen, Paul Pierce

add-

Chris Bosch, Amarie Stoudamire

[DarrylStingley]

The overwhelming desire of the players that Doc return was nice to hear.

He's not perfect, but he's clearly the best man for this team.

That said, that he wants to take another run with this group makes me unhappy. That group over achieved last year. It will take more than the sum of those parts to win in 2010-11.

[midgar8784]

The overwhelming desire of the players that Doc return was nice to hear.

He's not perfect, but he's clearly the best man for this team.

That said, that he wants to take another run with this group makes me unhappy. That group over achieved last year. It will take more than the sum of those parts to win in 2010-11.

I do not think they overachieved, the team won a title in 2008, they lost one of the 3 the next year so they didnt go to the championship, then in 2009, they were healthy and went back to the championship. They were a good team that played great defense, that comes through well in the playoffs. Houston used to do the same thing.

[DarrylStingley]

I do not think they overachieved, the team won a title in 2008, they lost one of the 3 the next year so they didnt go to the championship, then in 2009, they were healthy and went back to the championship. They were a good team that played great defense, that comes through well in the playoffs. Houston used to do the same thing.

I was referring to the 2010 team. And yeah, I do think that group over achieved in the playoffs. They beat two teams that had much better regular season records and they nearly took out a third. They beat teams that had some of the best players in the NBA. And they did it with a compromised KG and some aging stars.

Yeah, the 2010 Cs over achieved.

[PatsFanDan]

Yeah, the 2010 Cs over achieved.

Totally agree. Personally, I didn't believe they would get by Lebron and company. But when they took the first two games in Orlando, I woke up to the fact that they had a legit shot at another banner. Unfortunately it didn't work out that way but damn it sure was fun watching that ride.

[mikiemo83]

I was referring to the 2010 team. And yeah, I do think that group over achieved in the playoffs. They beat two teams that had much better regular season records and they nearly took out a third. They beat teams that had some of the best players in the NBA. And they did it with a compromised KG and some aging stars.

Yeah, the 2010 Cs over achieved.I think they may have underachieved during the regular season - Sheed rest time - making it appear that they greatly overachieved during the post season.

I agree they went deeper than I thought they would but I would not say they overachieved based on ho they played the 1st 30 games of the season before getting into rest for the playoffs mode

[babalu87]

rather do it this way-

subtract-

Ray Allen, Paul Pierce

add-

Chris Bosch, Amarie Stoudamire

That would work too.

Get YOUNGER while Rondo is

Danny is going to get sucked in thinking that they were only a few points away against the Lakers this year.

Teams gonna get old next year if they keep this nucleus

[DarrylStingley]

I think they may have underachieved during the regular season - Sheed rest time - making it appear that they greatly overachieved during the post season.

I agree they went deeper than I thought they would but I would not say they overachieved based on ho they played the 1st 30 games of the season before getting into rest for the playoffs mode

I don't give one shit about the regular season. It means nothing with respect to what I'm saying. In the playoffs, an aging team that was not the favorite in series two and three (and should not have been the favorite) beat teams with stars like LeBron and Dwight Howard. It then came within 6 minutes of winning the title with KG on fumes and its center on the sidelines. If that's not overachieving, I'd like to see what is!

[mikiemo83]

I don't give one shit about the regular season. It means nothing with respect to what I'm saying. In the playoffs, an aging team that was not the favorite in series two and three (and should not have been the favorite) beat teams with stars like LeBron and Dwight Howard. It then came within 6 minutes of winning the title with KG on fumes and its center on the sidelines. If that's not overachieving, I'd like to see what is!but it does matter or you would not be able to make a favorite or not - both were the favorite because of what went on for the last 3 month of the season. If the Celtics had maintained the 1st 30 game pace they would have been the favorite in both series not the underdog, again to say it doesn't matter would be false.

I didn't expect them to win it all this year but I thought they could be LeBron and the Cavs (old shaq and a bunch of ham and eggers), it was Howard's Magic that was the surprise but that was before Vince Carter disappeared

so did the Celtic overachieve or did the Magic Under - I go Magic under more than the Celtics over

[Fully Tilted]

I was referring to the 2010 team. And yeah, I do think that group over achieved in the playoffs. They beat two teams that had much better regular season records and they nearly took out a third. They beat teams that had some of the best players in the NBA. And they did it with a compromised KG and some aging stars.

Yeah, the 2010 Cs over achieved.

I don't give one shit about the regular season. It means nothing with respect to what I'm saying. In the playoffs, an aging team that was not the favorite in series two and three (and should not have been the favorite) beat teams with stars like LeBron and Dwight Howard. It then came within 6 minutes of winning the title with KG on fumes and its center on the sidelines. If that's not overachieving, I'd like to see what is!


:huh:

It's hard to say if they overacheived or not, really. The NBA is a veterans league IMO. Old guys usually do win in the playoffs.

[PumpDee]

:huh:

It's hard to say if they overacheived or not, really. The NBA is a veterans league IMO. Old guys usually do win in the playoffs.


If they got smoked in the finals, I might agree that they overachieved.

But they knocked out Wade, LeBron, and Dwight, then came 1 win away from knocking out Kobe.

Tought to say they overachieved with that for a resume.

[DarrylStingley]

No matter how you slice it, the Cs in the playoffs beat the teams with the best records in the NBA (Clev, Orlando) and almost beat the team with the third best record (Fakers). They beat teams with Dwayne Wade, LeBron James and Dwight Howard, meaning they beat teams in each series with the best player on the Court.

Vegas had them losing against Cleveland and Orlando in advance. And they won both series in only 6 games.

Veterans cut both ways. Wiley, sure, but injured and slower, also true. One of their best players, KG, wasn't ever 100%. They lost another in game 6 of the Finals.

In my view, they did more than we reasonably had the right to expect when the playoffs started, they won two series as underdogs and they did well to get to a game 7 against the eventual champs.

To me, that means achieving more than was to be expected, and to me, that means they overachieved in the playoffs.

Did they underachieve in the regular season? Maybe. But I think that was largely because of age and injuries and it was possibly the plan not to go balls to the walls. The Cs apparently recognized that if they were not going to get the first seed in the East, going crazy to get 2 or 3 was going to have limited benefits.

[mikiemo83]

IMO they didn't overacheive, those odds were based on regular season, you admit the reg season does not count so placing weight on them would be wrong - can't have it both ways


so going into the playoffs the only team that scared me was Orlando - the rest were beatable is the team was all dressed. I felt that on the 1st day of the playoffs and all the way to the end - a healthy starting 5 is still 7-0 in playoff series

and Orlando lost because Carter couldn't be Turkalo (sp?)

[DarrylStingley]

they didn't overacheive, those odds were based on regular season, you admit the reg season do not count so placing weight on them would be wrong - can't have it both ways


so going into the playoffs the only team that scared me was Orlando - the rest were beatable is the team was all dressed. I felt that on the 1st day of the playoffs and all the way to the end - a healthy starting 5 is still 7-0 in playoff series

and Orlando lost because Carter couldn't be Turkalo (sp?)

The odds weren't just based on the regular season, silly.

Orlando ripped the tits off the first two teams they played in the playoffs. Everyone outside of Boston looked at that and proclaimed the Celts as roadkill.

As to Cleveland, people looked at regular season records, LeBron, the supposedly stoked Cleveland roster, the fact that Shaq was healthy and the fact that Boston had an injured or limited KG, and said "Clev is the favorite."

In neither case was it just based on regular season records.

But this is one the stupider arguments we could have. The point I was making was that the Cs did really good in these playoffs. They beat teams that were arguably better on paper and they almost won the title. They did that with a not fully healthy crew.

I think they deserve a lot of credit for that and I think that Doc Rivers is part of that. And that he deserves a lot of credit for what happened.

To me, they overachieved. But the label you put on it or choose not to put on it is infinitely less important than the point: These Doc lead Cs did mighty fine in the tourney and are to be commended.

[midgar8784]

The odds weren't just based on the regular season, silly.

Orlando ripped the tits off the first two teams they played in the playoffs. Everyone outside of Boston looked at that and proclaimed the Celts as roadkill.

As to Cleveland, people looked at regular season records, LeBron, the supposedly stoked Cleveland roster, the fact that Shaq was healthy and the fact that Boston had an injured or limited KG, and said "Clev is the favorite."

In neither case was it just based on regular season records.

But this is one the stupider arguments we could have. The point I was making was that the Cs did really good in these playoffs. They beat teams that were arguably better on paper and they almost won the title. They did that with a not fully healthy crew.

I think they deserve a lot of credit for that and I think that Doc Rivers is part of that. And that he deserves a lot of credit for what happened.

To me, they overachieved. But the label you put on it or choose not to put on it is infinitely less important than the point: These Doc lead Cs did mighty fine in the tourney and are to be commended.




To me overachiving is doing something that you have not shown you have been able to do. The Celtics have shown they can win the NBA championship with this group, so to me, they underachived.

[DarrylStingley]

To me overachiving is doing something that you have not shown you have been able to do. The Celtics have shown they can win the NBA championship with this group, so to me, they underachived.

The 2008 team was not the same as this one.

Go back and watch the DVDs or read the box scores. That team got significant contributions from Posey, House and PJ Brown. That team had a 100% KG (as opposed to the 75% version of KG we saw this year who got KILLED on the defensive glass).

There were a lot of the same people on the 2010 team, but I think the 2008 team would have smashed them to smithereens.

Last: I would agree with you if the teams were, in fact, the same.

[mikiemo83]

The odds weren't just based on the regular season, silly.

Orlando ripped the tits off the first two teams they played in the playoffs. Everyone outside of Boston looked at that and proclaimed the Celts as roadkill.

As to Cleveland, people looked at regular season records, LeBron, the supposedly stoked Cleveland roster, the fact that Shaq was healthy and the fact that Boston had an injured or limited KG, and said "Clev is the favorite."

In neither case was it just based on regular season records.

But this is one the stupider arguments we could have. The point I was making was that the Cs did really good in these playoffs. They beat teams that were arguably better on paper and they almost won the title. They did that with a not fully healthy crew.

I think they deserve a lot of credit for that and I think that Doc Rivers is part of that. And that he deserves a lot of credit for what happened.

To me, they overachieved. But the label you put on it or choose not to put on it is infinitely less important than the point: These Doc lead Cs did mighty fine in the tourney and are to be commended.

better on paper???...are you kidding me now that is silly

after Lebron who did the Cavs have - shag, Z, delonte, maybe mo and jamison but Jamison is a playoff no-show similar to Vince C

after Howard and Nelson who did the Magic have - Reddick or Carter - come on forgot Lewis the Magics Jamison

sure one player can win a series but he better be named Michael

the Celtics had KG, Rondo, Ray and Paul name 4 better players on a team?

[midgar8784]

The 2008 team was not the same as this one.

Go back and watch the DVDs or read the box scores. That team got significant contributions from Posey, House and PJ Brown. That team had a 100% KG (as opposed to the 75% version of KG we saw this year who got KILLED on the defensive glass).

There were a lot of the same people on the 2010 team, but I think the 2008 team would have smashed them to smithereens.

Last: I would agree with you if the teams were, in fact, the same.



Yeah but Rondo was way better than he was in 2008, and that was a huge diminsion to why they went as far as they did. Davis was the one contributing off the bench as well as Nate Robinson. The Bench was a huge part of why they went far, so different yes, but I do not see it being worse.

[mikiemo83]

you know we could debate this for hours...it is all based on what each individual felt the team would give them so is there a wrong answer to did they over or under achieve?

[DarrylStingley]

Yeah but Rondo was way better than he was in 2008, and that was a huge diminsion to why they went as far as they did. Davis was the one contributing off the bench as well as Nate Robinson. The Bench was a huge part of why they went far, so different yes, but I do not see it being worse.

True enough, Rondo was a lot better in 2010.

But I think that on the whole, the rest of the team was a good deal worse.

KG was the heart and sould of the 2008 team. His defense was immense. He was a solid rebounder.

And as a team, the biggest problem the Cs had in the 2010 Finals was the defensive glass. The 2008 team didn't have that problem at all, and a lot of that was KG being so limited.

I think the 2008 bench was a good deal better. Posey and House gave them more consistent, clutch performances than Robinson and Davis, who were really just big in a few games.

[DarrylStingley]

better on paper???...are you kidding me now that is silly

after Lebron who did the Cavs have - shag, Z, delonte, maybe mo and jamison but Jamison is a playoff no-show similar to Vince C

after Howard and Nelson who did the Magic have - Reddick or Carter - come on forgot Lewis the Magics Jamison

sure one player can win a series but he better be named Michael

the Celtics had KG, Rondo, Ray and Paul name 4 better players on a team?

Absolutely those teams were better on paper.

EVERYONE in the NBA world outside of Boston saw what the Magic did in the first two rounds, and how they absolutely eviscerated their opposition, and thought that they'd beat Boston fairly easily.

As to the Cavs, in hindsight, it looks better for the Cs over them.

But before that series, the Cavs looked pretty deep. They seemed to have 10-11 quality players and, of course, they had LeBron.

The Cs had the Big 4 but (a) KG was limited, (b) Pierce and Allen were older players and (c) Rondo had never really dominated on the big stage and was viewed as a crappy outside shooter and FT shooter (and damn, he is bad on the line).

Yeah, I think that those teams looked better on paper before the series started.

[midgar8784]

Absolutely those teams were better on paper.

EVERYONE in the NBA world outside of Boston saw what the Magic did in the first two rounds, and how they absolutely eviscerated their opposition, and thought that they'd beat Boston fairly easily.

As to the Cavs, in hindsight, it looks better for the Cs over them.

But before that series, the Cavs looked pretty deep. They seemed to have 10-11 quality players and, of course, they had LeBron.

The Cs had the Big 4 but (a) KG was limited, (b) Pierce and Allen were older players and (c) Rondo had never really dominated on the big stage and was viewed as a crappy outside shooter and FT shooter (and damn, he is bad on the line).

Yeah, I think that those teams looked better on paper before the series started.



orlando beat up on some pretty mediocre competition in the playoffs before the celtics, I was not buying into it. Some teams are like what the celtics did. I watched Houston do it. They look average in the regular season, they limp into the playoffs and then they turn it up and go crazy. I just do not think its unheard of.

[DarrylStingley]

orlando beat up on some pretty mediocre competition in the playoffs before the celtics, I was not buying into it. Some teams are like what the celtics did. I watched Houston do it. They look average in the regular season, they limp into the playoffs and then they turn it up and go crazy. I just do not think its unheard of.

It's not unheard of.

But I viewed those Houston Rockets as over achievers, too.

When teams do much better in the playoffs that most people expected, I think it's fair to call them overachievers.

Put it this way: Before the playoffs started, did you expect to see the Cs in the NBA Finals?

I did not. And I think very few Celtics fans expected to see that.

As the playoffs went along, my expectations grew and by the end, I thought that they'd win the title. But when that ball went up against the Heat, I thought the Cs might win that series and would lose in the next round, for sure. And I bet that most Cs fans thought similarly.

[midgar8784]

It's not unheard of.

But I viewed those Houston Rockets as over achievers, too.

When teams do much better in the playoffs that most people expected, I think it's fair to call them overachievers.

Put it this way: Before the playoffs started, did you expect to see the Cs in the NBA Finals?
I did not. And I think very few Celtics fans expected to see that.

As the playoffs went along, my expectations grew and by the end, I thought that they'd win the title. But when that ball went up against the Heat, I thought the Cs might win that series and would lose in the next round, for sure. And I bet that most Cs fans thought similarly.



With that statement, I see your point on overachiving. Its hard for me to say different because, no I didnt expect that.

[Fully Tilted]

We're talking semantics at this point. Achievment, under or over, has nothing to do with expectations but 'ability'. The Celtic's most definitely surpassed many people's expectations.

[DarrylStingley]

We're talking semantics at this point. Achievment, under or over, has nothing to do with expectations but 'ability'. The Celtic's most definitely surpassed many people's expectations.
I don't know what that bolded statement means.

I do agree that the Cs surpassed most people's expectations for how they would do. Almost no one thought they'd be in the Finals when the playoffs began, and most unaffiliated observers thought they'd lose to the Cavs and then the Magic.

To me, that means they achieved more than was expected, making them overachievers. To you, that means something else.

Cool, either way.

To me, the point of this thread is Doc. And I think that Doc had a lot to do with the Cs winning more games this post-season than most people thought they would.

I also think that those who discredit Doc have to recognize the overwhelming sentiment of his players in his favor. I seriously doubt that this is a case of loving a coach who was easy on his players or that they wanted him back because he was their friend. The quotes from the players were many and were effusive, and they went to his talent, his personality and really everything about the man. I think it takes a lot of congitive dissonance to look at all that and say "Doc sucks."

And to be clear, I still think he's far from perfect. That the Cs' offense ALWAYS sucked at the last play of the quarter in these playoffs drives me bonkers and I blame Doc for that.

[Fully Tilted]

I don't know what that bolded statement means.


I don't know how to explain it differently but I can try. :shrug:

To me, the basis for which judging if an individual or team has overachieved or underachieved, starts by comparing said performance to 'ability'; as in, what the individual or team was capable of.

What we, as fans, or Vegas bookmakers say isn't indicative of that (their ability). That introduces our own skewed opinion and judgement.

Again, semantics.

[DarrylStingley]

I don't know how to explain it differently but I can try. :shrug:

To me, the basis for which judging if an individual or team has overachieved or underachieved, starts by comparing said performance to 'ability'; as in, what the individual or team was capable of.

What we, as fans, or Vegas bookmakers say isn't indicative of that (their ability). That introduces our own skewed opinion and judgement.

Again, semantics.
I hear that.

But doesn't the better team always win? Unless you're a Kordell Stewart type, if you win, you were better. Does that mean that no teams over achieve?

I dunno. I do know that the Coach of the Cs did a helluva good job getting that team one win away from a title.

[Fully Tilted]

I hear that.

But doesn't the better team always win? Unless you're a Kordell Stewart type, if you win, you were better. Does that mean that no teams over achieve?

The better team that day always wins. I just hate excuse-makers like Kordell Stewart. At least qualify a statement like that by saying, "They were the better team today."

I dunno. I do know that the Coach of the Cs did a helluva good job getting that team one win away from a title.

I agree. Still, it was a 'stomach punch' game as Simmons would say.

[midgar8784]

The better team that day always wins. I just hate excuse-makers like Kordell Stewart. At least qualify a statement like that by saying, "They were the better team today."



I agree. Still, it was a 'stomach punch' game as Simmons would say.

With me, its what the team is capable of doing. Obvioulsy the celtics are capable of winning the title. If the trailblazers jumped up and won the title, then to me that is overachieving. Maybe the 2001 pats overachived, but the 2003 team didn't because they had already proven they could do this. It goes with my saying that unless you do something, then you can't.

[DarrylStingley]

I agree. Still, it was a 'stomach punch' game as Simmons would say.
My stomach still hurts. It will for a while.

[DarrylStingley]

With me, its what the team is capable of doing. Obvioulsy the celtics are capable of winning the title. If the trailblazers jumped up and won the title, then to me that is overachieving. Maybe the 2001 pats overachived, but the 2003 team didn't because they had already proven they could do this. It goes with my saying that unless you do something, then you can't.

I think it's odd that you look at the 2001 and 2003 Pats as being the same and the 2008 and 2010 as being the same.

In both cases, what the earlier team did doesn't tell me anything about what the the later team was capable of doing. Or it tells me very little.

In the Cs case, the later team was not as good.

In the Pats case, the later team was a lot better.

You seem to look at them as one and the same.

[midgar8784]

I think it's odd that you look at the 2001 and 2003 Pats as being the same and the 2008 and 2010 as being the same.

In both cases, what the earlier team did doesn't tell me anything about what the the later team was capable of doing. Or it tells me very little.

In the Cs case, the later team was not as good.

In the Pats case, the later team was a lot better.

You seem to look at them as one and the same.



I don't think they are the same, I just think they were good enough to win the title. Obvioulsy they were, they came within 6 minutes of doing that. Like you said we lost some guys off the bench, but we gained some too, comparing them can be another argument I guess. Plus I already conceded the overachive thing a bit in this thread, so I guess I am not too "bright" Right DS?

[DarrylStingley]

I don't think they are the same, I just think they were good enough to win the title. Obvioulsy they were, they came within 6 minutes of doing that. Like you said we lost some guys off the bench, but we gained some too, comparing them can be another argument I guess. Plus I already conceded the overachive thing a bit in this thread, so I guess I am not too "bright" Right DS?
I think they were good enough to win the title, too.

As to the bright thing...huh?

[Steve1]

Doc Rivers/Danny Ainge/Celtics Ownership/Celtics Tradition

One hell of a great combination

I think Doc Rivers is a hell of a coach. And I'm glad Paul Pierce re-signed, the way he did.