RE: Why Dana?

[John Lyell <Jlyell@concentric.net>]

Actually the more salaries go up, the more reasonable his contract looks. 
 As for his ability to play the point he is simply mediocre. People seem to 
forget how crappy our floor leadership and execution was with Billups & 
Barros at the helm.
There are a lot of backups like Murdoch,  Howard Eisley, or God Shammgod 
that are better floor leaders. But as someone else stated will there be any 
takers ?  There are always teams looking to get rid of players who don't 
fit in their system.

I do not expect the Jones boys,  Edney, Tabak, and possibly minor, Knight & 
Barros to be back next year if RP has his way.





>
> I made that comment because, there seems to be a chemistry between the
> players and a sense of trust between them. Dana  is the closet to a 3 
point
> threat we have.  He is our back point guard and yes I agree he is too
> expensive but then do you want to draft a back up point guard and have 
the
> possibility that he might walk out after the rookie contract expires or 
be
> another Billups (high expectation, can not adjust to new style of game).
> Our low post D was traded away to Toronto, so what do we do? Draft 
another
> and hopefully he might be the one??
>
> I am in favour of improving the team but when we play 12 deep every game,
> how do we decide who goes? Let's not forget everyone who was on the team 
in
> the begining and is here now has improved leaps and bounds.
>
> Ritesh Ramani
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> If anyone has watched this team this year and says it ain't broke I had 
to
> question their logic.  Even though we won some more games we still have a
> long way to go.  We have no low post D, no consistent 3 point threat, and
> although the D is tough, we still give up a lot of easy hoops and got
> pounded by Miami a couple of times.
> We are getting close but still have a way to go.
>
> :
> >
> > (Document link not converted)
> >
> > All I got to say is,
> > If ain't broke, don't fix it.
> >
> > Ritesh Ramani
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >Though Dana is making alot of money, I don't think we should trade him
> > >unless we get something of value for him.  As a Celtic fan, I could
> >care
> > >less about whether we trade one of our players to a team that can use
> >him
> > or
> > >not.
> > After making the Billups and Brown trade, Kenny has experienced knee
> > problems.  Though all reports have indicated that this is not a serious
> > injury, anything which will limit his mobility is cause for concern in 
my
> > book.  I know I am not the only person who is really scared that he may
> not
> > return to his previous level, but nobody wants to say it.
> > Dana, has no more defensive liabilities that does Kenny, but we have 
been
> > so
> > happy with his addition to the team that we've overlooked some decent
> > minutes from Barros, and to a lesser degree, Edney.  Unless we can get
> Mike
> > Bibby in the draft, I wouldn't unload Barros so quickly, and even if we
> > were
> > in a position to snare Bibby, should we when consensus seems to be that
> we
> > should go for the beef?  I think that would make for an interesting
> > decision
> > for RP and CW.
> > Cecil
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Shailendra K. Mishra <skmishra@dlsun660.us.oracle.com>
> > To: celtics@igtc.COM <celtics@igtc.COM>; leonelq@quetal.net
> > <leonelq@quetal.net>
> > Date: Monday, April 06, 1998 4:22 PM
> > Subject: Re: Why Dana?
> >
> > >Two reasons:
> > >
> > >a) He is too expensive for a bench player.
> > >b) He deserves a starting PG's job, I can name five teams whose 
starting
> > PG's
> > >are worse then Dana e.g. Denver, Vancouver, Toronto, Clippers,
> Sacramento.
> > >                               - Mishra
> > >> From owner-celtics@igtc.COM Mon Apr  6 11:31:01 1998
> > >
> > >>
> > >> I say we keep Dana, he will play some great minutes coming off the
> bench
> > >> next season.
> > >>
> > >> If we want to free some cap, lets do it with Knight, Pervis, Minor,
> > Jones
> > >> (both) and Tabak.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Bring Mohamed!!!!!!
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Alejandro
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>