Re: trade

[j.hironaka@unesco.org]

peter delevett wrote:

> Interesting theory about Dana. Considering the off-season rumors about him
> headed to Denver, I'm a little surprised he wasn't included in this package.
> But I think considering the questions about Anderson, Dana will likely stay
> around at least until we have an idea of what Turner can do in real games.

Pete, I think Barros is very important to the team now that Paul Pierce is our
only other solid perimeter shooter. From a team depth standpoint, Paul Pierce's
good health is arguably the single most important factor for success this season.

This is arguably a more balanced team than even Indiana or last year's Orlando.
Keeping Dana means we have two world class perimeter shooters, two double-double
calibre rebounders (Toine and Fortson), two unselfish and productive enforcers
(Potapenko and Fortson), two clutch shot-creater/scorers (Pierce and Toine) and
two principle ball handlers against the press (Toine and Kenny).

Although I typically agree with Mishra, I view yesterday as a watershed for the
Pitino/Wallace regime, and hopefully for Celtics history. Knowing how desperate
we were to move Ron Mercer quickly, I'm amazed that Denver would throw in both a
protected lottery pick and 3 million in cash. I don't think I'd care to sit
across a poker table from Rick Pitino! He did a great job under the
circumstances, and best of all he demonstrated an awareness (for the first time,
IMO) of exactly what ingredients have made previous Celtics teams so uniquely
successful.

With hindsight, I believe there are mucho teams that would have been content to
draft Battie and Fortson with the #3 and #6 picks. At the time, ESPN said flat
out that the Celtics had made a "mistake" passing up Battie and further claimed
he had at least as much ability as #2 overall pick Marcus Camby a year earlier.
As for Fortson, this guy averaged more rebounds last season than any HOF Celtics
player from the 1980s, and he accomplished this at age 23 and in just 28 mpg.