Re: to put it all in perspective. . .

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

Just a few points:

1) Yes, Denver did include a pick along with Fortson in order to get
Mercer, but they ALSO got to dump Eric Williams - a hefty negative for us
that far outweighs the value of the included pick in the short term.
Williams's contract makes Popeye's look modest in comparison.

2) Our pick is also "protected" to a degree depending on when we exercise
it in the future. The fact that it is a future pick (possibly long into the
future if we want to remove the protection) makes it that much less
valuable NOW (we are trying to succeed now, aren't we?).

3) If we're comparing trades I don't think it is as equivocal as you seem
to assume - it's a hands down slam dunk for Denver: 

Abdul-Wahad (a starter), 
Gatling (whom I dislike as a player, but has value) 
Popeye (for one more year)
and a protected pick for this year from the Magic (I think it is actually
Denver's being returned, but whatever) 

versus 

E. Williams (a big negative as you astutely point out), 
A. Williams (who may be a nice player but is still at best a back-up), 
a protected pick not available until some time in the future, 
Sean Marks (good luck getting PT) 
and an exhibition game (wasn't there a time when we offered those to get a
player? Roberts?)

4) The point about dumping Eric Williams was my lame attempt at ironic
tongue-in-cheek humor ;-P 
EW's negative value is the whole reason we got stuck with him in the first
place - because Fortson was sooo good that took EW on to balance the deal.

TomM
----------
> From: Alex Wang <awang@MIT.EDU>
> To: Thomas Murphy <tfmiii@worldnet.att.net>; celtics@igtc.com
> Subject: Re: to put it all in perspective. . . 
> Date: Friday, February 11, 2000 2:24 PM
> 
> 
> > I forgot to mention that Denver also got a 1st round pick back from
Orlando
> > in addition to Abdul-Wahad and Gatling - but then we got an exhibition
game
> > with Toronto! Hoo-boy!! 
> 
> Come on Tom, you're trying to compare the Mercer to Orlando trade with
the
> Fortson to Toronto trade? Of course they got more for Mercer; they gave
up
> a probable lottery pick AND Fortson to get him in the first place. The
pick
> that they got back is lottery protected and if they take it this year I 
> think they have to send back a future 1st rounder too. 
> 
> If you to compare trades, the real question is would you rather have 
> Gatling, Abdul Wahad (who will be a free agent), and the lottery
protected
> Magic first rounder, or Eric Williams (who is a big salary liability),
> Alvin Williams, and the less restricted Denver pick? It's not such an 
> easy call, I don't think. I guess it depends a large degree on where the
> picks end up. I'm not a big fan of non-lottery first rounders; they're
> nice for plugging holes or taking long-term projects but they don't help
> your team that much except possibly in the long run. What if the Denver
> pick ends up #6-8 in 2001, say, and we get lucky with another Paul Pierce
> type talent? On the other hand, it could conceivably even be out of the
> lottery if Denver improves.
> 
> > If our payroll were/is such a problem, why didn't we give away Eric
> > Williams (as Joe suggested)? I guess that question constitutes it's own
> > answer. Gee and to think when the Denver deal was done last August, I
> > thought Williams was the one we'd try and dump - not Fortson!
> 
> It's impossible to give away huge cap liabilities like Eric Williams 
> without including some positive assets. Pitino would dump him in a second
> if anyone would take him. As for dumping Fortson for payroll issues, 
> I think if things had worked out as originally intended with Antoine
> moving to SF, then Pitino would have no hesitation signing him, and he
> had to know that from the beginning. So it's not a case of "we just 
> aren't go over budget" regardless of what he says; it's a case of "he's
> projecting to be our third string center and it's just dumb to sign
> him for any money at that role." He just cut his losses instead of
> compounding his big mistake by adding more salaries.
> 
> Alex