Re: Why consider a Walker trade?

[Michael Joseph Byrnes <mbyrnes@leland.Stanford.EDU>]

On Tue, 13 Jan 1998, Cecil Wright wrote:

> What money is Walker asking for?  You sound so definitive in your 
> statements, almost as if you've personally been contacted by he or his 
> representative.

At this stage is his career, Walker is outplaying Kevin Garnett, and the
age difference between the two is only about a year.  A few months ago,
Garnett got $20 million per year.  Given that salaries *always* tend to
*increase* over time, Walker should be able to get more money than Garnett
on the open market.  

> He may be perfectly willing to accept less to stay in Boston, knowing 
> that he may never be able to experience the freedom he has here.

On the open market, Walker should be able to get more money than Garnett
got.  How much less do you expect him to sign for?

> It's terribly unfortunate that a player must be flawless to be of worth 
> in today's eyes.  

You are missing my point entirely.  I never said that Walker was of no
worth because he is not flawless.  The point is, the current
financial system in the NBA dictates that the Celtics will shortly have to
commit their entire future (for the next seven years anyway) to Antoine
Walker.  Or, trade him.  In today's NBA there is no middle ground.  

> However, your comparison of Dominique makes no 
> difference as far as Toine's overall ability is concerned.

Doesn't it?  Wilkins was a legitimate NBA star in his prime, perhaps the
best talent in the NBA after Michael Jordan.  But when did his Hawks ever
play in the finals? We've seen enough of Antoine to know that he is an NBA 
superstar in the making.  But the same could have been said (and was said)
about Dominique Wilkins midway through his second year in Atlanta.  If the 
Celtics are going to invest $120 million and seven years of their future 
in Antoine, they had better be convinced that he will be more than a
superstar.  

Michael Byrnes
mbyrnes@stanford.edu