RE: C's Still Trying To Do A Blockbuster Trade

[OzerskyJA <OzerskyJA@cmog.org>]

I think the mistake you make about Pierce is that most of us think
of him, as good as he is now (and he is very good now -- Eddie 
Jones ranked him as one of the five hardest guys in the league for
him to defend) he is just getting started.  Antoine may have a bigger
upside in terms of total game, what with his passing, but Pierce really
just needs to get a little more confident, in a little better shape, and 
refine his game somewhat, much as he did last season in getting away
from the predictable baseline spin.  When you look around the league
at the best shooting guards, here's you have right now:

Michael Finley -- far and away number one in my book.
Iverson
Allan Houston
Kobe Bryant
Eddie Jones
Vince Carter

Now you may disagree with one or two of those (out of order I might add)
but the point is that Pierce has the tools and the tendency to be as good as
any of them.  Iverson and Bryant are probably more gifted scorers, but
Pierce
can play D with any of them and is a better rebounder than any but Finley.
If
you think Pierce is merely a good but not great player, like Ray Allen,
maybe it
makes sense to trade him.  But I don't see Ray Allen rejecting small
forwards'
jump shots, getting 8 steals in a game, dunking on power forwards, etc.  If
Pierce
gets in the same kind of shape as Vince Carter and starts taping up and
otherwise
taking care of himself, the Celtics have an all-star/all pro type player on
their hands,
and one who produces every night, unlike Antoine.

Josh Ozersky	
Marketing Communications Specialist 
Corning Museum of Glass

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Berry, Mark  S [SMTP:berrym@BATTELLE.ORG]
> Sent:	Thursday, August 17, 2000 10:06 AM
> To:	'kestutis.kveraga@dartmouth.edu'; 'celtics@igtc.com'
> Subject:	Re: C's Still Trying To Do A Blockbuster Trade
> 
> Kestas wrote:
> Since it's rather obvious that Pierce is superior to Wells (except to Mark
> who seems to advocate trading Pierce for anyone, anytime), why would we
> want
> to give up a serviceable center or multiple picks for O'Neal, whose true
> position is unclear, and who sports 4-year career averages of 11 mpg,
> 4ppg,
> and 3 rpg?
> 
> OK, this made me chuckle. It probably does seem like I'm in favor of
> shipping off Pierce for the first decent offer we get, but I'm really not.
> I
> like Pierce... I just don't love Pierce. It's not just him. None of these
> guys have won anything as Celtics. I mean, we value them so highly, but
> what, exactly, have they really accomplished? Score some points? Big deal.
> Padded stats on bad teams. Pierce is a nice player. So is Toine. But they
> aren't as good as some on the list make them out to be. If Pierce goes to
> Portland, he gets Bonzi Wells' minutes, because he isn't taking much time
> away from Scottie Pippen or Steve Smith.
> 
> I look at this Celtics team and see another 35-40 win season. They've
> added
> a few decent pieces-Moiso, Blount, Brown-but nothing that makes for a
> significant upgrade. And how much are these guys going to improve? Is
> Pierce
> suddenly going to average 30 ppg? Is Toine? Vitaly is what he is, and
> Kenny
> was as good as he is ever going to be last season, and he wasn't that
> good.
> Look at the rest of the roster. Where is the improvement coming from?
> 
> So, I advocate trading Pierce if you can get the right package. His value
> is
> sky-high right now because he is young, cheap and has big stats. You can
> get
> some serious talent in return. You have to give something to get
> something.
> 
> Now, as for O'Neal and Wells... Do I know how good they are? No, I'm
> counting on Pitino and Wallace for that (granted... that's dangerous). But
> I'm sure when Red traded the first pick in the draft (J.B. Carroll) for
> Parish and the rights to McHale, there were plenty of people who said
> "they
> traded the league's next great center for an underachieving loafer and a
> big
> white stiff." 
> 
> My point is, we can hold onto our precious players like Pierce and Walker
> and Vitaly forever, and settle for miserable seasons like the last two, or
> we can make a bold move to get better. Is it guaranteed to work? No, but
> at
> least it's a chance. Right now, we don't have one.
> 
> Mark
> 
> P.S. As for the four-way trade: The only real winner was Dallas, because
> they gave up nothing and got the best player in the deal, Eisley. Yes,
> Marshall averaged a double-double, but he played huge minutes on an
> atrocious Golden State team and shot something like .403 from the field.
> He's terrible, he always has been terrible, and he always will be
> terrible.
> He shows up one night out of three, doesn't have a position and is
> ridiculously overpaid. (If we had known that was what the Jazz were
> looking
> for, we could have sent them Battie.) He won't approach those stats in
> Utah.
> The Celtics got what they wanted-no more Fortson and a first-round pick.