Comments on: Boston's Garnett probably will miss all of playoffs

By: alan t.

alan t. — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 01:02:28 +0000

I know I'm in the minority, but I don't think L.A. is going to have a cakewalk. With Garnett gone and with Lewis and Turkoglu playing on one leg, everybody is assuming it's going to be the Lakers and Cavaliers. But the Lakers' competition leading up to the finals is going to be a lot tougher than Cleveland's.

By: larry d.

larry d. — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 00:51:32 +0000

Who cares if it's tainted. They'd still have to beat the Lakers in any case.

By: alan t.

alan t. — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 23:15:07 +0000

I still think it's going to be tainted. I mean, Garnett turns 33 next month, not 93. That's what you get for playing like a maniac in each and every game for 14 seasons. I mean, even James' head occasionally has been in the clouds like Drew Gooden, but never ever Garnett.

I just like watching really good basketball, at this point I really don't care who wins anymore. Without Garnett, it will take a lot of the enjoyment away.

I don't if this had anything to do with Danny Ainge having a "mild" heart attack today. Personally, that scares the bejesus out of me. It's only "mild" if it happens to somebody else. From now on, every time I have heartburn or feel bloated and can't fart, I'm going to be calling 9-1-1.

By: terje

terje — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 21:42:44 +0000

the boston celtic's championship window shrunk to 1 year today. this year's boston celtics are next year's dallas mavericks. it's not the cavs fault that k.g. and ray allen aren't 5 years younger. it taints nothing. boston needed two 7's and a 6 to get through cleveland, atlanta and detroit last year. that was at full strength.—it's over for them.

enjoy that one ring k.g. because that's all you're getting.

By: alan t.

alan t. — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:48:36 +0000

Wait a minute. Is it complimentary or complementary. I think Pat has it correct, I got it wrong.

Oh, who cares.

By: alan t.

alan t. — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:46:35 +0000

Please. They wouldn't have beaten the Celtics, even with Chones. That's a nostalgic myth. Especially with the way they had to eek by the Bullets by a nose hair. I don't think they could have beaten the Suns in a seven-game series, either. Cleveland and Phoenix were pretty evenly matched, but I think the Suns would have taken them.

Anyway, losing Garnett is going to taint the Cavaliers' series win against Boston in a major way, assuming that's who they end up playing. Which is a damn shame, because I would have really liked to see a real rematch. I despise that word that Pat adores, but it would have been an "epic" series to watch. Now we'll never know.

And Pat, comparing losing Garnett to a possibility of losing James is just ridiculous. The teams are constructed totally differently. Not a valid comparison in the least. If James ever went down, pack up the Samsonite, dude. They wouldn't be able to beat Charlotte or Toronto in a seven-game series.

And I disagree completely, Ilgauskas has ALWAYS been a "complimentary player," even long before that ridiculous gifted Ferry contract in 2005. Only the local sportswriters have kept perpetuating that nonsense for years, particularly the two former Beacon Journal shills. But they long had a roster which forced Ilgauskas to be "key," and he's not that kind of player. I always point to that 17-65 record as irrefutable proof. He's a match-up type role player, has always been a match-up role player, and now, at long last, he no longer is forced to be a "key."

By: Cavs Fan Since the 70's

Cavs Fan Since the 70's — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:01:29 +0000

I seem to recall the Cavs being without their big man during the "Miracle of Richfield." As I recall, they lost to the Celtics when Jim Chones went down. Boston fans will whine, but stuff happens. Let's hope the breaks do eventually even out — even some 30-some years later.