Re: mercer gone

[Alex Wang <awang@mit.edu>]

> Why is it so hard for some writers to see why we traded Mercer because =
> he wanted more money?  Minnesota had to do the same thing because =
> Marbury wanted MAX money.  I don't think Kevin McHale is an unreasonable =
> GM.  And as far as trading a potential great scorer for rebounding, =
> Sacramento did the same thing and were a BETTER team with Webber than =
> they were with Richmond.

Actually, after the new CBA, Minnesota (and every other team in the league)
would have been quite happy to give Marbury the max. Marbury left Minnesota
because he didn't like it there, because it wasn't close to New York, and
because he couldn't stand playing on the same team as Garnett, his peer,
who would be making close to twice his salary. But Marbury is a talent on
a whole other level than Mercer. 

The Sacramento trade was trading a great scorer for a equally good scorer 
with great rebounding ability but head problems. I don't think that our 
trade is quite as lopsided (since Webber was also in his prime vs Richmond 
on his way down). I'd say our trade is (hopefully) closer to Stackhouse 
for Ratliff in terms of the talents involved, though Ratliff has performed
beyond most expected at the time of the trade.

Alex