Re: back-up point guard

> 
> Fred Fahey wrote:
> >We DO NOT need McInnis.  He is not a true point guard in
> >thgat he looks for his own shot first.  He has talent and
> >an attitude.  One of the good things about being terrible is
> >that you can afford to be selective (no hurry to
> >get better).  Stay with Wesley, he si the
> >best thing we have going.
> Not arguing McInnis is *The Answer*, but I think you're missing a bigger
> point with your last comments. The C's are in desparate need of a back-up
> point. Not necessarily to replace David but to keep from ruining him. Wesley
> is averaging over 40 min per game. Bad enough per se, but this is on an
> injured foot that will never get the chance to fully heal at this rate. I'm
> not even remotely comparing David to Kevin as a player, so don't everyone
> have fits, but the situation is distressingly similar to when McHale
> continued to play on a stress fracture, diminishing his mobility forever
> after and cutting the length of his career. David is nowhere near the player
> Kevin was, but the C's need him and they will just as surely break him down
> unless they get him some help. So no, they can't afford to wait.
> -Kim
> Kim Malo
> kmalo19@mail.idt.net
> 
> 

No point in a back up point who bitches about PT.  Go to the CBA and get
a point who will be happy to be here.  Again, we are
in no hurry to get better right now.  Also, how can you "ruin" a player
by playing him 40 minutes?  Is the pitch count lunacy migrating from
baseball to basketball.  Granted he might get tired playing 40 mpg but
I suspect he does more running in practice than he does in a 40 minute
game.

While I am at it, was is the point of not playing Walker at least
30 mpg?  The man is only 20 YO and needs PT to improve, not ML's 
words of wisdom on the bench.

Fred