Re: Ron's agent

[j.hironaka@unesco.org]

peter delevett wrote:

>  The Celtics can pay Mercer whatever they want up to the $71 million limit that
> they gladly and without hesitation gave Walker. ''Seventy-one million? Well, that's not
> close,'' Scott said. ''Let's just say if $71 million is on one side of the mountain, we're
> not to the point
> where we can even see it from the other side.''
>
> What the hell does this last line mean? Walker's salary "isn't even close?"
> Can anyone elucidate on this? Is $71 mil really what Antoine gets paid? I
> can't remember the number.

Pete, I took this to mean that the Boston Celtics are offering less than 35.5 million
dollars for 7 years (i.e. less than half way up 'the mountain"). That surprises me. Even
ignoring the expected 12-months worth of high-end salary inflation in a still thriving
American economy, one might still expect that the Celtics would readily agree to pony up a
contract in the Kerry Kittles/Marcus Camby range (50 million/7 years, I believe).

Battleship Potapenko signed for 5 million a year, as I recall. Peter May seems to me to be
on target in noting that the Wallah McCarty, Dwayne Shi-tzu and Olive Oil Jones signings are
exorbitant, considering that none of those guys had any serious negotiating leverage to
speak of, much less hope of being more than a bench-warmer on a genuine contending NBA team.

Nevertheless, all three of those iffy ballplayers plus Barros, Minor and Pervis still
probably average out right at or marginally beneath the 1999 league-wide salary average.
Compare that to the Portland or Knicks  bench. IMO, the Celtics are either saddled with an
unrealistically miserly young owner (Paul "Thanks Dad" Gaston) or a deeply disingenuous
president and coach (Rick Pitinochio) who is groping for a good excuse to move Ron Mercer
out of Boston.

-----