Re: Fortson

["Thomas Murphy" <tfmiii@worldnet.att.net>]

No one is more sad about this situation than I am. . . How can we just give
up on a guy who is going to be the equivalent of Charles Oakley for the
next decade and a half? Pitino can't, with all his basketball knowledge,
figure out how to keep Fortson and Twon on the floor at the same time?!?
This question drives me crazy. And when was the experiment with Twon at the
3 conducted? I must have missed it going for a beer. . .

I think you're correct in saying its about money and salary cap, at least
insofar as "how can we pay a back-up what Fortson wants. . . " but that
begs the issue of why he's a back-up. Maybe Twon's max deal has sucked all
the air out of the budget since they KNOW Pierce is going to get the max.
I'm not in favor of trading Twon, but you have to wonder if rumors about
him are connected to the fact that if we got Jalen Rose we could re-sign
both Rose AND Fortson for what Twon makes now.

I loved your post about our lack of rebounding last night - my thoughts
exactly: we've got the league's 4th most efficient rebounder sitting while
valuable minutes go to McCarty, Griffin (who is not playing that well on
one leg) and even Twon, who really didn't produce last night.

Meanwhile, Pitino acknowledges that Fortson did a good job: "that's why he
played" he says - for all of 16 minutes!?! Aarrrggghhhh!!

All the best - TomM

----------
> From: kevin lok <kevin.lok@lycosmail.com>
> To: Thomas Murphy <tfmiii@worldnet.att.net>; celtics <celtics@igtc.com>
> Subject: Re: 
> Date: Monday, February 07, 2000 7:02 AM
> 
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> 
> Thomas Murphy wrote:
> 
> > I hope you're right!
> >
> > TomM
> >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2000 12:15:45 +0800
> > > From: kevin lok <kevin.lok@lycosmail.com>
> > > Subject: Re: Subject: RE: Re. How about Glen Rice?
> > >
> > > Isn't it funny and ironic? Why do we want to trade and we ourselves
could
> > use "a true banger and rebounder who does not demand the ball on
offense."
> > >
> > > my money's is on battie/pervis/barros being on the trading block now.
> > Fort's name on the rumour mill and lack of playing time is just
negotiation
> > tactics on his next contract. That's how I see it.
> > >
> > > kevin
> 
> Hey Thomas,
> 
> I guess I'm wrong. I think it is really about money and salary budget,
nothing
> to do with Fortson being foul prone. Today's Blazer's game had Walker
with
> fouls, yet Pitino did not put Fort in. Fort could have played more than
16min
> becos he was getting rebounds and the put back (and the foul and the
FTs).
> 
> http://www.bostonherald.com/bostonherald/sport/cnotes02072000.htm
> Fortson on the block
> Pitino admitted what's been reported lately, that the Celts are looking
hard at
> moving Danny Fortson.
> ``It's a mutual thing,'' Pitino said. ``If he's not going to get playing
time,
> I can totally understand why he'd want to be traded. And if we can't get
him
> playing time, it behooves us to trade him. It's something that's been a
> difficult situation because Antoine's played so well, and we haven't
really
> been able to play Antoine at the three spot (Pitino wanted to get him
8-12
> minutes a game there, but Walker hasn't proved viable at the position).
> ``We've either got to get (Fortson) more minutes or he's not going to be
a
> happy person, and rightfully so,'' Pitino said. ``You can't blame him.
It's his
> contract year. And I'm not sure we could even sign him for what their
asking
> price would be.''
> After playing just 27 minutes in the last four games combined, Fortson
was in
> for 16 last night. He had eight rebounds and six points (all from the
line).
> ``I thought he played a good game,'' said Pitino. ``I thought he took the
ball
> to the hole strong. He got eight rebounds in 16 minutes. That's what we
needed,
> and that's why he played.''
>