Re: Now the pressure's really on Rick.

[Alex Wang <awang@mit.edu>]

> No, nobody has conducted a poll but there are number of players and
> some pretty good ones who don't want to play for the celtics. Based on
> the sample of players that have been asked, if they would play Pitino
> ball I arrived at the number. Person at this point in his career is a
> journey man and would be glad to play for anybody. Mitch, I was
> surprised but then this may have to do with his contract situation.

OK, there are over fifteen players who have actually played for the
Celtics under the Pitino system. How many people have actually said
that they won't play for Pitino? Less than sixty I'd say, so your
number seems completely unjustified. By the way, who has actually said
that? I can only think of two or three players.
 
> I don't agree with you, because unless the players gel it will be hard
> to figure whether you have the pieces or not. The C's in this perenial
> mode of aquiring players and then dumping them without giving them a
> realistic chance to succeed. I think with Walker, Mercer, Pierce and
> Potapenko we have a pretty good core. They have flaws in their game but
> nothing that can't be corrected by a good fundamentals coach.

So you are saying, since we are ignorant, keep them together? I am sure
Pitino has an idea of whether he has the core he wants, and he will trade
or not trade based on that. My guess is that he feels that Mercer doesn't
fit in with Walker and Pierce. Much is made about the fact that the Celtics
played better without Walker and Anderson but they also played much better 
without Mercer (when Walker and Pierce were playing together). In fact,
it seems to me that when Mercer is in, Pierce sometimes starts forcing 
up bad shots because he knows if he doesn't, he's not going to get any 
shots because Mercer takes so many. I really noticed that Pierce, in 
certain games when he wasn't getting shot opportunities, would get the 
defensive rebound, dribble up court himself and jack up a 3.
 
> Well! technically you are correct, but what I am implying by that
> statement is the following:
>  
> Take for instance the Billups deal which got us Anderson for Billups +
> Dee. One of the reasons that was sited for the deal, was that the C's
> couldn't afford Billups when he comes up for renewal.
> Dee and Billups would have been FA's in the year 2000 but we aquired
> Anderson for even bigger contract. Now the C's are in a bind because
> that contract is not easy to move unless we are willing to sacrifice
> one of the core players.
>                         - Mishra

Are you suggesting that keeping Billups (and paying him) would have solved 
the point guard issue? I have a feeling that Billups will never play 
point guard in the NBA again. Anderson is not playing well currently but
he's certainly a better point guard than Billups.

Alex