Re: Trade

[bird <bird@pixi.com>]

>From: galter@cstone.net (Gary Alter)
>
>Let's see now, the Warriors get a double double player, Utah get's a 
>double double player, Dallas get's a starting point guard, ...

Look, I'm a fan of Fortson's game, but let's not overvalue the other 
players in this deal that we did not acquire or gave up.  Fortson 
_does_ have limitations, and the one that means the most to our team 
is the plain, undeniable fact that "Ship Be Sinkin'" didn't want to 
play for us.  He was gone, gone, gone.  Marshall did average a double 
double last season, and that's nothing to sneeze at, but he also shot 
something like 38% from the field.  And if you're suggesting that the 
Mavs' new PG is Dana Barros, well, he may beat out Steve Nash and 
then again, he may not.  A 5'11" shooter who doesn't shoot well 
anymore is hardly a major asset.

>The Celts get a player who has missed 60% of the season with 
>injuries for the last few years and a player who makes Pervis look 
>good and a late #1 pick which you know they won't keep because old 
>RP and Thanks Dad won't want to pay 3 first round guaranteed 
>contracts. Oh yeah, there's that 3 million dollars too.

Yeah, Pack is injury-prone, and maybe won't play very much.  Guess 
we'll see.  "Hot Rod" is, of course, a non-factor in this trade, only 
there because of the cap.  If he isn't cut by the team, we've got a 
extra ass't coach sitting on the bench.  (I think that makes an even 
dozen now.)  Your Perv comment makes me think "How soon we forget." 
Maybe there will be a M.L Carr statue erected soon.  _Nobody_ makes 
Ellison look good, except Ellison, and then only occasionally.

You dismiss the pick, but might I suggest we wait and see whether we 
keep it and what player we might get with it before we crucify 
management for throwing it away?

>Getting nothing for Fortson would have been better, at least it 
>would have gotten us closer to getting under the cap.

It's good to have a dream, but unattainable ones will just frustrate 
you.  The Celtics aren't getting under the cap without a major 
reconstruction, and that doesn't look like it's happening.  What 
matter if we get "closer" to being under the cap?  We'd be "closer" 
to offering players more than the exceptions.  Whoo hoo.  This ain't 
horseshoes, and I don't see how being "closer" accomplishes anything.

At least we got something for Fortson/Mercer other than Eric 
Williams.  And they're two first rounders in a day and age where 
rookie contracts are valued because of their relative low money and 
long term (with option).  Plus, everything I keep hearing is that 
next year's draft is deep in talent.  Sounds good.  If Pack can 
contribute, so much the better.

>It's time to take off the Pollyana glasses. "Gee, if Battie can be 
>consistant, wow, if Walker gets in shape, if Pack can only get 
>healthy, golly, if Kenny starts to pass more and I know if we try a 
>little harder that that pressing defense will start to work and of 
>course Rick has a blockbuster trade up his sleeve that wi!
>ll just turn things around."

One man's Pollyanna is another's pragmatist.  The fact of the matter 
is, barring a major trade, the success of this team is dependant on 
the improvement of its returning players and the contribution of the 
new ones.  Lot's of players improve in the NBA.  Why is it somehow 
naive to believe that it's possible that our players will?

Regards,

Bill