RE: RP on Barros

[John Lyell <Jlyell@concentric.net>]

You have to realize we spent the first half of the season with a draft flop 
at point and the second with Anderson and his injuries.  Who else is going 
to play point,  Minor ? If Dana was a bonified point we would not have 
traded for Kenny Anderson.  All these guys are better playmakers than 
Barros.  As previously noted we had no floor leadership under Barros & 
Billups.  Anyone naive to think Dan can be a true point probably would have 
chose to keep Billups.  This is an Elgin Baylor type decision that will 
haunt the Clippers until he is gone .  Dana is an undersized 2 guard.  Nash 
& Fisher would both be better at running this offense than barros. 
 Unfortunately we have few takers for his services at his size & salary.





On Sunday, April 12, 1998 12:47 PM, Cecil Wright 
[SMTP:cecil@hfx.andara.com] wrote:
> I can't see how you can justify the no PT assertion when he averages more
> mpg than any of the other players mentioned, including Dana.
>
> Nash     - 21.9mpg
> Eisley    -20.9mpg
> Fisher    -20.8mpg
> Barros   -19.9mpg
>
> Cecil
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Evan LaGrasse <01elagra@jasper.uor.edu>
> To: Celtics@igtc.COM <Celtics@igtc.COM>
> Date: Sunday, April 12, 1998 4:55 PM
> Subject: RE: RP on Barros
>
>
> >
> >
> >On Sat, 11 Apr 1998, John Lyell wrote:
> >
> >> I agree Fisher, Nash & Eisley are definitely better at the point
> position.
> >>
> >
> >I agree as well. Is there any possible way we could get Steve Nash next
> >year??? He is one of the most underrated players in the NBA, in my
> >opinion, and gets no PT in Phoenix. It would also allow Dana to move to
> >the backup 2 spot. Will Nash be a free agent this year or does he have 
one
> >of those 3 year rookie contracts? I can't remember whether he was picked
> >in the 1st or 2nd round.
> >
> >Evan
> >
> >
>