strategy for the future

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

Well, from the tenor of the last digest I take it that the folks on the list
don't share the optimism that Coach Pitino (or as Bulpett refers to him
today, "Celtics coach and mayor of spin city Rick Pitino") has been spouting
after our "very good" 2-4 road trip (Pitino's own words). I have to agree
with what seems to be the general consensus. After watching the trip on tape
I have to believe that it will be an effort simply to match the record of
Pitino's first year here (36-46), which would require us to go 13-14 over
our last 27 games.

[FWIW here are my two favorite moment from the LA game (approximately, not
verbatim).
#1 - 1st qrtr, V has been constantly battling Shaq, forcing him to miss
three fall-away shots (out of 4 total misses on the day for Shaq), and had
just coaxed an offensive foul from the Diesel.
Heinie: V could be a key player today, he's doing a really good job
defending Shaq. He's fronting him, he's pushing him. . .
Smithers (as V is subbed out): and he's leaving the game. . .
Heinie: -sound of crickets chirping-

#2 - I think it was the 3rd qrter, broadcasters rambling as it is obvious
that the game was over long ago.
Heinie: Well, if you talk to them (Celts brass), they'll tell you they think
McCarty is one of their best shooters.
Smithers: No! Really?
Heinie: Yeah!
Smithers: -sound of crickets chirping-]

The spin is that we have easier teams to play now, but wasn't it our
inability to beat such "easy" teams (Milwaukee, Orlando, Chicago) a key
factor in attaining the record that we now have? I think the clincher for me
on this last road trip was that after 50-plus games our team STILL looks
clueless out there. They look lost. They don't have a strategy or general
game plan or even a style that typifies them (other than the dreaded "monkey
outbreak"). I share the general incomprehension when it comes to the
question of why we run the fast break so poorly and infrequently. We don't
out-run teams, we don't out-rebound teams, we don't out-shoot teams, and we
certainly don't out-defense teams - what is our niche, our expertise?

Talk of the playoffs at this time is really out of the question (this is not
a dig at Alex, who merely has provided us with the facts, but at Pitino and
his fog-factory). This is the third year in a row we've been treated to the
spectacle of a lottery-bound team talking up the playoffs, and it has grown
tiresome. Sure, Milwaukee and Detroit may be stumbling (and we're not?) but
in case anyone missed it, not only has Orlando beat us out for the ninth
spot but Atlanta has tied us for the tenth! Both Orlando and Atlanta were
blown up over last summer - and yet here we are struggling to keep abreast
them, never mind make the playoffs. That is not progress, it is regression.
I really don't want to hear about playoffs unless we are actually battling
for the eighth spot - not the tenth! Even IF we were to make the playoffs,
does anyone really feel that this is truly a playoff team? Does anyone
really believe anymore that with a little time and one or two more players
that we will be contenders?

I for one no longer believe so. What this team needs is a strategy for the
future, not another duct-tape fix-it job so that we can "contend" for the
playoffs during the last 3 years of "mayor of spin city" Rick Pitino's
reign. This is what I propose, feel free to differ (as if you needed
permission ;):

First off, let me say that I share the pessimism regarding any player
personnel changes expressed earlier - Pitino seems destined to play whatever
players he does have out of position. Short of getting rid of Pitino,
however, there seems little else that can be done. Of course, the suggested
changes I'm about to make probably have zero chance of happening under
Pitino (since he would in essence be admitting failure - although he has
come close to doing so recently), but I'll offer them as food for thought.

If the fiscal situation is as dire as Pitino makes out (and even if it is
not) this team needs to clear some cap room and groom young talent in order
to try and make a push for a championship sometime later this decade.That
means we have to get rid of our overpriced long-term contracts.

First on the block: Kenny Anderson. I like Kenny and he has undeniable
talent, but he'll be retired before this team ever contends. His value
should be at a high about now, so use him to package off some of our less
desirable cap cloggers. What I'd propose: send Kenny (7.7 mil, expires '03),
Eric Williams (4.4 mil expires '04) Walter McCarty (2.6 mil BYC 2nd yr
expires '02) and Tony Battie (3.3 mil BYC expires '06) to NYK for Wallace
(2.2 mil), Childs (5.1 mil) and Dudley (10 mil) [all salaries approximate
for the year '01]. Totals: Boston sends out 18 mil and receives 17.3 back.
BYC requires that Boston only receive back 75% of McCarty's 2.6 and 50% of
Battie's 3.3 which together total 2.3 mil yet fall within the 15% wiggle
room of the trade value (18 mil * .15 = 2.7 mil), so it's A-OK cap-wise
given these contract figures (derived from Pat Bender's site).

Why do this? Each of the contracts we receive back from NY expires in '02,
so we will clear significant cap space in two years, still within Paul
Pierce's rookie contract window. In addition to the considerable financial
considerations, we also receive a starting PG (for 2 yrs at least), an
intriguing prospect at SF in Wallace, and a veteran presence in Dudley, who
can tutor our young frontcourt regarding positional rebounding and avoiding
fouls.

NY does it because they get the PG that they feel can get them over the top
while Ewing can still move without the aid of a walker. NY is so far over
the cap that additional cap-fodder is not as damaging for them insofar as it
gives them more pieces to move in trades just like this one. Also, their
starters allow them the luxury of not having to rely heavily upon Williams
or Battie while taking the time to see if Williams can ever return to form
or if Battie can actually mature into a consistent player under the tutelage
of the Knick vets.

Move #2 - the Antoine Walker project. Regardless of your feelings towards
Twon, there is one indisputable fact - he makes the max for his experience
bracket. 9 mil this season alone and 5 more years on top of that. Regaining
any cap flexibility within the next 2-3 years is dependent upon moving
Antoine out of town. My preference would be to do a sign and trade with the
Clips for Derek Anderson, signing Anderson for Battie or at most Potapenko
money over the short term (3 years max). IMO there is no way to get
Olowokandi from the Clips and we shouldn't waste our time trying except as a
ploy to settle for less.

Why do this? We do it to clear significant cap space (even if we sign
Anderson to half of Twon's salary we clear 4.5 mil and more likely we clear
closer to 5 or possibly 6 mil). we also receive back a player who can play
SG and also PG on occasion. This would be very beneficial to Barros in his
last year here. Anderson's flexibility would also help in crafting defensive
line-ups - a backcourt of PP and DA would be quite intimidating, whereas a
line-up with PP at SF and DA at SG would be extremely quick.

Why does LAC do it? Well, this way they get a return on Anderson, and if
they do a sign and trade for Mo Taylor to get a PG (say to Cleveland for
Brevin Knight) they'd be sitting pretty in terms of fielding a respectable
line-up (Kandi, Twon, Odom, Piatkowski and Knight). Twon is signed long-term
so he isn't going anywhere. Twon comes at a high price - and this might be
the key sticking point - but this might be just the investment to boost the
value of the team if Sterling is ever planning to sell. The willingness to
pay Twon may also serve to quell the concerns among the younger players
(Kandi & Odom) about their potential future in LA.

Move #3) Re-sign Fortson for the short-term (3 yr max) just like Derek
Anderson, for Battie money. Let him play. Let him foul out. Take the 15-20
rebounds and the tough interior D and live with it. The offense will flow
smoother (Twon must set the WORST picks of any PF) and the Cs should develop
a rep for being rough customers. A rhetorical question: how tall is
Toronto's frontcourt? Not one starter is over 6-9, but no one would dare try
to run "lay-up drill" or a dunk-a-thon over them. No one messes with Vince.
Toronto doesn't seem to miss the shot-blocking as much as you would suspect
to hear some of the comments on this list. Between V, Fort and Dudley we
will have 18 fouls - USE them, it is not a violation of the rules to do so.
And don't forget, not only will our frontline of Potapenko, Fortson and
Wallace (or PP) commit fouls, they will also DRAW fouls.

I envision our line-up would look like this: V, Fort, Wallace, PP, and
Childs. Bench: Dudley (20-25 min), Adrian Griffin (10 min), Derek Anderson
(6th man - 35 min) and Dana Barros (15 min). V, PP, and Derek A would be the
primary scorers although Wallace could certainly help out here (check out
V's stats - he shoots over 50%, has a mid-range jumper, a lefty and righty
hook, he only seems to be getting better, and if he were to average only 36
min THIS YEAR he'd be a 15 ppg 10 rpg player). This team would at least be
hard-working (I can see it now - the "lunch-bucket gang") and I believe
competitive also. With Twon's departure many of the awkward mismatches on D
would be minimized. The wingmen should have no problem jetting out on the
break or getting loose on screens given the bulk we possess at the 4 and 5
spots. V, Fort, Wallace, PP, and Derek A. should get long minutes together
(although not necessarily always as a complete unit) in order to further
refine their raw games and to develop some synergy playing together. The
vets should be strictly reserves - we shouldn't mortgage the future to get
the eighth seed today. Draft on talent, not need (although I expect a
talented PG should be available at some point in the next 2-3 years).

After one year all the ML contracts will expire (buh-bye Dana, Greg Minor).
After two years all the former Knick contracts will expire along with
Calbert Cheaney's. Only four of the current players would be under contract
for '03: V (5.3 mil) and presumably Derek A and Fortson (3-4 mil each?) and
PP would be extended (2.5 mil tops?) Throw in rookie contracts for another 5
mil and we would be at least 15 - 20 mil below the cap - enough to sign one
and possibly two top flight players if we've demonstrated the progress
necessary to that point.

More than likely though, we hold onto most of that space, since PP's class
of rookies will not be available till '03, and continue to develop our young
talent (by giving them enough playing time to develop) or if necessary
decide we want to go in another direction (since Fort and DA expire in '03).
Either way we should be able to persuade PP to re-sign for the max, but not
before we acquire at least one more key piece on the way back to the top
(Antwan Jamison? Olowokandi? LaFrentz? Bibby? Larry Hughes? Nowitski?). The
beauty of it is, we can wait and see which prospect pans out and which fits
our needs and then be able to strike. Our cap flexibility should put us in
position to make a tempting offer to a young star to join a maturing team
that is on the way up.

This long-term strategy should place the team in position to at least have a
shot at contending in the latter half of the decade. IMHO it is the strategy
we should be pursuing, not the futile attempt to find "just one more player"
in order to qualify for short-term playoff humiliation so that Pitino can
declare "victory" and then retreat to the college scene. Any and all comment
welcome.

-TomM