Re: What The Knicks Trade Means To The Celtics

[bird <birdw@aloha.net>]

>From: Way Of The Ray <wayray@ix.netcom.com>
>
>Why it's the Atlantic Division. Whooo you caught me on a mistake.

I was just trying to understand which one you meant, because it 
matters to my point.  Your point is better served if you meant the 
Conference.  See below..

>Really, did the teams from the Atlantic Division suddenly vacate the
>Eastern Conference? There is a playoff gap, when four teams
>in your own division are improved and better than you. Then add Indiana,
>Milwaukee, Cleveland, Toronto, Charlotte, and did I mention Philly,
>and it's slip sliding away.

You keep saying there's a playoff gap, but there really isn't.  See, 
if all these teams improved so dramatically (and it's a big if) in 
just the Atlantic, it doesn't really matter much, because it's not 
just teams in the Atlantic that Boston is fighting against.  They 
just have to be the eighth-best team in the whole Conference to make 
the playoffs.  Even if all the Atlantic teams were better than the 
C's, Boston would still have a chance to make the playoffs (this is 
an admittedly unlikely scenario).  If you're saying that all (or a 
good portion) of the teams in the Conference improved at the C's 
expense, then this "playoff gap" would exist, but I'm not sold that 
they have.  Indy might be able to pull it off another year, and 
Milwaukee did improve, but they were only a eighth-seed last year. 
The other, Central division, teams you mention don't seem to have 
suddenly skyrocketed to the NBA elite.  In the East, there's Indy and 
Miami, then the first tier of mediocrity, and then the second-tier 
(where we are), then there's the Bulls and their ilk.

>Hell, if Strickland gets his act together
>with Washington, they could surprise some people. If the Hawks
>keep Mutumbo, Terry improves, and DerMarr Johnson shows anything,
>they're better than they were last season - so are the Bulls.

Yeah, "if," and "could," -- those are pretty strong words.  Add a few 
"maybes" and you really might have something there.  I fail to see 
how it's possible for other teams' player to improve in the 
off-season, but it's judged an impossibility that our players will do 
so.

>If it's just Baker for Ewing, it isn't God awful, but Rice and Baker
>for a Ewing about to break down at any time, that's grand
>thievery.

OK, fair enough that on paper, getting Rice and Baker for Ewing seems 
good, but my point is that Baker, for all his potential, may be only 
a shadow of his 20 and 11 last year with the Bucks.  Who knows, maybe 
he shines once he's in the East again, and maybe not.  You won't know 
until the season's over.  And Rice?  Certainly a deadly shooter in 
his day, and maybe that day is passed.  Who knows, maybe they find a 
way for him to co-exist with all the other swingmen (or at least guys 
who play the three) in NY, and again ... maybe they don't.  Right 
now, who plays center for the Knicks?  Travis Knight?  Camby?  Baker? 
Looks good for the opposition.  Will Rice be happy coming off the 
bench or do they start him in front of Houston or Sprewell?  Or ... 
is there another deal coming to further shake up their line-up.  In 
short, it's too damn early to tell.

>They [the Nets] added the first pick in the draft, who's healthy, 
>healed and ready
>to rebound and block shots, something the C's could use more
>of - Then add him to the core of Marbury and Van Horn and
>that's improvement in my book. Forget Williams and Kittles not
>being around as they were basically MIA last season too.

One rookie improves them so much?  Martin might turn out to be a 
good, even great player, but I don't think he makes up for Marbury's 
ballhoggedlyness or "soft as a lilly" Van Horn's shooting percentage. 
I have a feeling that without Williams, the Nets take a few years to 
get back to the second-tier in the East.

>The C's have been dusted out of the playoffs.

Well, hell, you heard it here first, folks.  Why even bother playing the games?

>Geez, how clear is this: The Celtics missed out on the playoffs
>last year, only improved slightly during this off season, seem to
>have the same starters that weren't good enough to propel them to the
>playoffs last season in a weaker Eastern Conference, and now
>a majority of the other teams in the Conference have improved
>for their clubs for this season,  with some showing dramatic
>improvement. The Eastern Conference is simply a lot stronger this
>season.

Yeah, the only problem is, most Eastern Conference teams haven't 
necessarily improved all that much.  I would think you, of all 
people, Ray, would know that prognostication isn't always what it's 
cracked up to be, and just because _you_ say it's so, doesn't make it 
so.  This is one of the inherent problems with basing one's entire 
opinion of the team on the off-season player moves.  Who knows, one 
of our players might pull a Jason Terry or Rod Strickland and get 
better.

>So tell me how the Celtics are going to make the playoffs?
>
>How? How? How?

Well, since you asked so nice, I'll repeat what I've been saying for 
a while, now: IF the Celtics are to improve, it will be because a 
combination of our returning players (hopefully 
Walker/Pierce/Griffin/V/Battie) improving their games, and the new 
players (Blount/Carr/Brown/Pack) contributing in role-player-type 
ways.  You may not think that's very likely, but that doesn't change 
the fact that, barring a major line-up shake-up, in order for the 
team to garner more wins, that's exactly what's got to happen.  Will 
it?  I don't know, but I hope so.  Guess I'll just have to watch the 
games and see.