Re: Attention GM wannabes

[Joe Hironaka <j.hironaka@unesco.org>]

    I agree that Pierce is the only tradeable big name on the Celtics roster,
both cap-wise and on the proverbial "buy low, sell high" principle. But by the
same token he is also the most affordable and easily re-signable long-term asset
on the team. Once you get over the "he regressed last year compared to Vince
Carter" prejudice, you realize that our man "Saint Paulie Girl" is a pretty
promising building block. How many former college big forwards can step into the
NBA guard slot and finish second in the league in steals? Pierce has shown off
and on that he can be one of the best three point shooters around, plus he has
worked diligently on slashing to the hoop and drawing fouls. Considering these
are all new skills no one associated with his game in college, it's almost an
understatement to say that he's a fast learner (and a diligent worker).

    If we are talking about scenarios that involve acquiring a 300 pound, 7-2
mobile franchise center, then that's one thing. But if you are talking about
T-Mac (an unproven 70 million hit on our payroll), Pippen or anyone else on the
creaky Portland roster other than Rasheed, then I'd say thanks but no thanks.
Getting rid of additional cap trash is hardly a sufficient motivation to trade
Paul Pierce. The Celts have up to three first rounders in the next two drafts,
some genuinely unselfish role players who have helped make the Celtics a
statistically elite rebounding team, and finally two near-All Stars presently
below the age of 24.

    By order of preference, these are the "assets" I would not mind seeing
traded (in exchange for a veteran or later first round draft pick):
1) an end of contract veterans that could fit another team's 2001 cap-clearing
strategy like a Dana Barros. For example, I think Dana can fit into the Orlando
playbook that's run for their starter, Darrell Armstrong.
2a) Denver's lottery protected pick, since it won't land us the top center we'll
need anyway.
2b) Any future Celtics first round pick on the assumption/hope that it won't
turn into a lottery pick, but might be overvalued by the trading team as one.

    But I'd be just as happy if we stay put. Sure we probably won't win the Eddy
Curry or Tyson Chandler lottery any time down the road, but their mere presence
in an upcoming draft means names like Troy Murphy, Terrence Morris, MSU freshman
Zach Randolph, Seton Hall freshman Eddie Griffin, Joe Forte, Carlos Boozer and
others could slip down into our laps. A lot of these guys turned down a chance
to be a top ten pick this year (how often do you see THAT happen?), which
highlights what a bonanza upcoming drafts will likely be.

***

"Berry, Mark S" wrote:

> "So then Pierce is the guy to trade."
>
> I certainly think so Paul, and if the Celts do take a guy like Crawford, or
> even a swingman like Courtney Alexander or DerMarr Johnson, you'd have to
> think they'd have something in mind to address the woeful deficiencies in
> the frontcourt.
>
> The difficulties with base year compensation have been well documented
> lately, but you can deal Pierce without any complications. How many doors
> does that open? You can package him with dead weight (Eric Williams, Calbert
> Cheaney, anyone else on the Celtic bench...) to take on a salary that
> exceeds Pierce's. You don't have to worry about only taking back 50 percent
> of his salary, yada, yada, yada.... With Pierce, it's simple.
>
> And his value has to be huge. Wouldn't the Clippers love to bring him home?
> Isn't he a perfect fit in Philly? Toronto is going to need a replacement for
> T-Mac. Portland could use a replacement for aging Pippen and S. Smith.
> Denver needs a small forward. The guy could bring a ton in return.
>
> I'm with you on this. I just hope Pitino is thinking the same thing.
>
> Mark