Re: URL: Clippers May Move Taylor (Time For Another Celtics Trade)

[j.hironaka@unesco.org]

Good points. It just seemed to me that two weeks ago you were equally adament
that the Celtics couldn't afford to sign two more 5 million dollar contracts
(Fortson and Battie). Yet you now advocate 11.7 million a year for "Liz"
Taylor. You must really like him. That's fine.

As trade scenarios go, I believe Taylor's present cap figure is quite small
(lower than Battie I would imagine) so it's not likely we could move some of
our cap killers (Kenny Anderson or Eric Williams).

-------
Way Of The Ray wrote:

> My resolve is unshaken by your arguments, Brother Joe, because Taylor
> offers the C's their first legitimate low post presence since Dino
> departed in Pitino's coup d'etat. True, the rebounding has been
> inconsistent, but after all, consistencey and the Clippers are generally
> two words that don't meet in the same paragraph. Is Taylor worth the
> maximum?
> Was Antoine worth the maximum? Of course not, but these flawed athletes
> are paid for their potential, and Taylor has the potential to be a
> dominating
> low post presence, something the C's desperately need.
>
> Perhaps there's a way of using both Fortson and Taylor, say Danny Boy at
> Center, or having Fortson come off the bench as the sixth man, backing
> up Pot and Taylor. What would be wrong with that? whatever the case.
> if the Clippers shop Taylor, I expect Pitino will check out what they
> want for him....
>
> Ray
>
> j.hironaka@unesco.org wrote:
> >
> > Way Of The Ray wrote:
> >
> > > http://www.ptconnect.com/sports/stories/990908/sclips.stm
> > >
> > > Good news for the Celtics, since David Falk may be called upon to
> > > broker the deal. Taylor provides the C's with the low post offensive
> > > presence, they currently lack.
> >
> > Way, fill me in on this "good news". Why do you suppose Pitino would
> > decide now to meet Falk's 70.9 million contract demand for Maurice
> > Tayler, especially after he averaged a career high 5.3 rebounds in 32+
> > minutes and tailed off to .461FG shooting for the season? The Celts
> > statistically stand to gain 250% more rebounds by giving those valuable
> > power forward minutes to Danny Fortson. Mo Taylor may be comparatively
> > one heck of a smooth West Coast "power fairie" low-post scorer, but
> > consistent rebounding is a prerequisite for that position whereas
> > low-post moves represent a nice bonus. It's NEVER the other way around
> > (at least for clubs that want to be among the top 28 teams). Taylor's
> > ballyhooed big rebounding night (20 against the Grizzlies) illustrates
> > just how inconsistently and indifferently he played for the bulk of the
> > short season.
> >
> > For me this situation kind of demonstrates that Master P isn't the only
> > negotiator getting his clients alienated by making unrealistic and silly
> > contract demands. For example, the key differences I see between Taylor
> > and Gary Trent is that GT averaged respectable rebounding numbers (7.8)
> > in fewer minutes and (I would say not coincidentally) played for a more
> > successful team. He also shot .477 from the field in getting his 16 ppg.
> > Trent was a true 1999 free agent who theoretically should have had a lot
> > more negotiating leverage than 70-million-dollar-man wannabe's like
> > Derek Anderson, Ron Mercer, Mo Taylor.
> >
> > ----------