Re: This Mess

[Noah_Evans@ca.pvt.k12.ma.us (Noah Evans)]

KJGoo,kjgoo@worldnet.att.net,Internet writes:
I'm amazed that no one has suggested that the Celtics CUT FRANK BRICKOWSKI! 
Yes, those IDIOTS in the front 
office squandered $1.8 million that could have been spent on a player under
the age of 50 who could actually 
play (I'm sure they could have gotten Travis Knight for about 1/3 of that
salary, but that would have required 
some intelligent thought), but that's cash down the drain now.  I'm
absolutely HEARTBROKEN that good ol' Frank 
will be on the shelf with -- what was that injury again -- lumbago? -- for
the next 2 months.  Whatever will 
the Celtics do without his 4 points and 1.6 rebounds per game?  

If management loses any more of their brain cells, we'll end up drafting
Duncan all right -- and trading him 
for Roy Hinson.  

I think you're being too hard on the Celtics' front office. There was
logic(albeit limited) in taking Brick over Knight. Brickowski is a journeyman
center who has stayed in the nba throughout his career. Because he is notable
for his ability to bang underneath the boards and hit the three, the Celtics
took him to be a workhorse underneath and free up the middle for Williams and
Walker. Although he didn't do what was expected due to chronic shoulder
problems the Celtics logic was sound. Knight was a complete X factor. At 7'
and 230lbs who would have thought he would have been able to become an
adequete NBA center? The Bulls certainly didn't, they took Thomas
Hamilton(?!) instead. The only reason the Lakers took him was to be a cheap
third string center behind Shaq and Sean Rooks. I think hindsight always
tells us what we should have done, but it doesn't help us with our future; I
think the celtics have made plenty of mistakes but I don't think Brick over
Knight was one of them.

Your responses always welcome

Noah