Re: Moves ?

[j.hironaka@unesco.org]

I'm just wondering....What prevents the Celts from (theoretically) trading Mercer
or Walker for an identical rookie contract extended player from the same entry
class (i.e. Van Horn for Mercer, or Ray Allen for Walker)?

Would not the base-year limitations cancel out? At least we would then be talking
in the realm of "fair value", compared to a 4-million-a-year journeyman type
veteran.

That's also why I noted yesterday that we can't entirely exclude the possibility
that Antoine Walker is presently still being shopped in a trade (contrary to our
earlier interpretation of Pitino's hint on WEEI radio that "it would have to be
either Walker or Mercer"). Based on Michael Holley's "scoop" that the Celtics are
now working on a deal to get back into the 1999 draft, I felt that it is at least
plausible (although highly unlikely) that Pitino might perceive "fair value" for
Antoine Walker to be Chicago's #1 overall pick. Obviously, the town of Boston
would be a lot happier to see Walker leave than Mercer.

Of course I trust that you'll guess my own view on this matter, even those of you
not gracious and patronizing enough to "dearly love the impeccable orthodoxy of
(my) opinions".  :-)

Happily, I think Jerry Krause would be too dim-witted to make this trade. I find
it hard to take that Teletubby seriously, despite the accomplishments of the
Chicago Jordainaires in this decade. Anyway, it could be a fun July (when all the
trading starts).

Joe



---------
DJessen33@aol.com wrote:

> Note that Pitino said Walker is virtuallly untradeable because of his base
> year thing making him only worth 4 million a year coming back. Mercer should
> be the same way if resigned. I don't think you would want to sign him for the
> max and then also make him untradeable...
>
> DJessen33