RE: Trades

["Niles, Shawn" <SNiles@vanderweil.com>]

Jerry West can afford to take risks because he has so many players to back
him up. So Rice did not work out in LA. It doesn't look like to me it has
hurt them any. If the Celts trade Pierce and it doesn't work out, they will
have no one of trade value left and no wins to show for it. I think the
chances of Pierce becoming one of the top 3-5 players in the league are a
lot better than Anderson or Olowokandi becoming one. I'm sorry, but, this
type of trade would make no sense.

Shawn Niles

-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Wang [mailto:awang@mit.edu]
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2000 11:56 AM
To: celtics@igtc.com
Subject: Re: Trades 


Shawn Niles writes:

> Why would you even consider trading our best player in Pierce, who in his
> second year is already a proven player, for Olowokandi, who you yourself
> call a "gamble". That would be a very foolish move.

and

> I agree the pick would be nice, but history has shown that even a number 1
> pick does not guarantee a good player. I just don't think it is worth the
> gamble to trade our best player when there is a decent chance the pick
gets
> you nothing.

I think that a fact that some people forget is that when you trade, you
very rarely get something for nothing. Jerry West had a quote about what
makes a good GM, which basically was, "willingness to take risks." 
West trades quite a bit and takes big risks; the Rice for Campbell and
Jones trade looks pretty bad now, right? But how about trading their
proven quality center Vlade Divac for cap space (to help sign Shaq)
and an unproven high school kid (Kobe Bryant)? Pretty damn smart.

So just because you are trading a proven player for an unproven player
doesn't automatically make it a "very foolish move". You are taking a
risk because you have the possibility of a higher return; it's the
same reason you might invest in a stock, which is a "gamble", rather
than sticking with your "proven" bank account. 

I won't pretend to know whether this is a good or bad trade because you
wouldn't have any idea without knowing a lot more about Olowokandi than
I can discern from box scores. But let's look at the possible scenarios.
First, the ugly one: the Celtics try to low-ball Derek Anderson and he
runs to Chicago. Olowokandi declines into a CBA center. The pick is
another bust. Pitino gets fired, Pierce becomes the best player in the
league, leaves the Clippers to join the Lakers, and the media starts
talking about "The Curse of Pierce". 

Here's another scenario. The Celtics sign Derek Anderson and he continues
blossoming into an All-Star guard. Olowokandi, who was a late starter
to basketball, develops into a premier center in the league. And the
draft pick, which is in the top three, gets us an All-Star small
forward/point guard. The media gets into a debate about whether the 
Celtics have too many superstars to win a championship while continuing
to laugh at the Clippers for their foolish trades. 

The reality would probably be somewhere in between. It would be the
job of the Celtics staff to figure out which outcome is more likely
before making a trade like this. My point is, just because someone is
your best player doesn't mean that he is untradable; he just has a 
higher price than everyone else.

Alex