Re: NBATalk says trade is bad for Boston

[Francis Hsu <francis@ai.mit.edu>]

I'm curious what that NBATalk writer thinks would have been the better
alternative with Fortson.  The alternatives:
1)  Resign Fortson to the same contract he's going to get from Golden State.
Even if Fortson is worth $40 million over 7 years, I don't think he would
have ever fit in well with the Celtics.  He would not have gotten the
minutes he wanted, and would just be plain unhappy despite the money from
us.

2)  Give Fortson up for nothing.
This only looks good if you believe that the trade was worse for us than
giving him up.

3) Hold out for a better trade
Does anybody out there think that we would have gotten a better offer than
this?

So really the choice is between 2) and the trade.  Salary wise, we take on
about $6 million for this year, and give up about $3.5 million.  However,
we get $3 million cash to help pay the extra burden.  So let's consider
this to be even.

Now let's look at the players.  We're not going to get anything for Fortson
under scenario 2), so his value is nothing to the Celtics.  Worst case
result of the trade is if Pack turns out to be useless.  In this case, I
break the trade down this way:
Fortson for Pack and Williams - nothing for nothing
Barros for Utah's first round pick in 2001
So the real quesiton, in my opinion, is whether this exchange is good or
bad for us.  And I think it's really hard to say.  We could get a nobody
with the pick, or we could get a future star.

If Pack does turn out to contribute, I see the trade as Barros for a useful
Pack and first round pick.  In this case, I would have to say that we did
better than giving Fortson up for nothing.

Francis