Re: Bart Hubbuch: C's Finish 14th in East

[jmc@ptc.com]

Georgek27@aol.com said: 

> wayray@ix.netcom.com forwards us this tripe:
> << * KEY ADDITIONS: Underrated forward-center Danny Fortson was a nice pickup
> from Denver in the Ron Mercer trade, and swingman Calbert Cheaney is a
> capable scorer in the right situation. Even so, the Celtics needed to do a
> lot more in the
> off-season if they hope to break out of their recent free fall.
> 
> * KEY SUBTRACTIONS: Trading Mercer to the Nuggets because the Celtics didn't
> want to meet his asking price remains something of a head-scratcher.
> Mercer's not a superstar, but Pitino needs to keep as many talented pieces in
> place as possible. You get the feeling the Celtics aren't as dedicated to
> winning as they once were. >>
> 
> How the hell can this writer first say that adding Fortson was a "nice
> pickup" and then turn around and call the deal a "head-scratcher".  Maybe he
> has lice.
> Another thing - l only wish we were trying to breakout of a recent free fall!

Well put, George.

Another thing which doesn't make sense is how 2 other analysts have 
said that Pitino's "constant tinkering has killed continuity" and 
"continues to make wholesale changes after every season", and implied 
that this is what will keep the Celtics down, while this guy says: 
"the Celtics needed to do a lot more in the off-season". 

I don't think any of them get it!  The Celtics kept Pierce, Walker, 
Battie, Potapenko, Anderson, Barros and McCarty from last season.  
That's 7 of the 8 guys who played more than 20 minutes per game last 
season.  That's far from wholesale changes or tinkering with continuity! 

Yes, there were a lot of names in that one deal, and a bunch of free 
agent signings, but most teams make frequent changes to their 9th, 10th
11th and 12th players.  The Celtics basically traded one young offensive 
star for one young defensive star, making the team more balanced, trading 
where they were overly-strong to fill in a big weakness.  Otherwise, all 
they did was fill in the end of the bench with some veteran and smart 
players.  The core is the same with just 1 change, that change made the 
team much more balanced and "harmonious", and the rest of the roster is 
more experienced and smart.  

These analysts just don't know how to look at the big picture, do
they?  They just look at previous year's results, look to see who got
the better "deal" in any big trades, make small adjustments in the
standings, then look for excuses to justify their predictions.
These guys should be trained to forget last year's standings and 
make their predictions from a bottom-up analysis of the people on 
the teams rather than a top-down analysis startingfrom how teams did 
last year.  What losers.

Anyone know if there's a way to send email to these loser analysts, 
or at least the papers/mags they write for? 

Jon Mc