RE: Michael Holley finally says it.

[Kestas <Kestutis.Kveraga@Dartmouth.EDU>]

At 14:55 2/11/00 -0500, you wrote:

> You can't
>be serious that you would rather have Doc Rivers over Pitino. You must have
>just needed another argument to add to your post. 

No, I'm completely serious. I didn't expect Doc to able to coach, but he
has impressed. If Pitino  had been in his situation with that crew, we'd be
drowning in excuses now (not that we aren't already).  I don't think you'll
argue that Orlando has more talent than we do, yet they are above us in the
standings and playing very nice basketball with that mixture of CBAers,
late picks, and little-known FA signees. 

> Larry Brown has done
>nothing in Philly with much more talent than Pitino including the games
>leading scorer.

Well, he got them to play defense and got them to conference semifinals -
something that Ricky hasn't, and most likely won't, accomplish. As for the
talent comparison, I'm not so sure Philly has "much more" talent. Sure,
their bench is deeper, but if you compare the starting lineups, we match up
quite well. Kenny is better than Snow, Walker is better than Hill, Lynch
and Griffin about the same (Adrian has slid a little since the injury),
Ratliff is significantly better than Pot in only one category - blocks,
and, while Iverson scores more points and hands out more (4.6 to 3) assists
than Pierce, he trails Paul in every other statistical category. Their
1-through-9 lineup is better, but, IMO, not so much better  that it
accounts for all the difference  in achievements. They've had quite a few
injuries, too. 

>Maybe he took on a bigger contract, but he got someone usefull to the team.
>If you have to have a contract for a guy, it might as well be a guy you can
>play. Dee was a  useless complainer who did nothing but ruin chemistry.

That's why I said I'm not complaining about the trade, and I supported it
when it happened. But the fact remains that he didn't free up cap space in
that trade - quite the opposite. 

>Every team might have a guy or two who doesn't perform, but I don't think
>anyone was stuck with as many of these guys as the celtics. Thanks M.L. I
>would like to be stuck with Portlands "deadbeats". Their 11th guy is Stacey
>Augman.

I think the Blazers are a testament to what an astute GM can do for a team.
Sure, they're owned by multibillionaire Allen, but if you look at their
roster, only the big guns are paid a significant amount (by NBA standards).
The biggest contract for a non-contributor is $1M/yr. (Gary Grant signed at
$2M for 2 years). Schrempf, still a solid if limited-minutes contributor,
is getting $2M per, and Augmon is signed for the minimum. They've done a
fabulous job rebuilding from the early 90s championship-contender teams of
Drexler, Porter and Ducky.

We can blast M.L. for all of the Celtics' problems - he's an easy target, a
lightning rod if you will. Saying anything good about M.L. is like
supporting John Rocker, voting for David Duke, or thinking that Haider is
the greatest Austrian since Hitler.  But  M.L.  did pull off the most
brilliant trade of the 90s - BWS Montross for the picks that became Antoine
and Mercer. And I think he too, like Pitino,  was saddled with problems not
of his making - some of the bad decisions made by Gavitt and Volk.
Ultimately, it all comes back to the ownership for not hiring the right
people to do the job, and not knowing whom to open the wallet for and whom
not to.