Re: Naming Names, was Lady and the Tramp

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

At 04:54 PM 3/4/00 -0500, you wrote:
>Just for the record.  I was not happy when Pitino was hired.  I didn't
think >he would save the Celtics.  

I had no way of knowing that, and it doesn't really matter whether you
supported his hiring or not. It just makes your current support of him (is
that factually correct?) even more incredible. 

>My point is and remains that Pitino is not the problem
>here, really.  

I don't think he is THE problem, I think he's a big part of the problem
which can be fixed most easily, given that hiring and firing of coaches and
GMs is not governed by the salary cap.

>Walker needs to stay in Boston and report to camp in shape.  We
>need some tough veteran players.  Dorine was correct in saying that Fox and
>Wesley could have provided some example for the young talented players.  I
>agree with her we should have kept them.  

I agree with you - but who is Antoine's coach, and who got rid of Fox and
Wesley?

>But, the problem is what Gaston is
>willing to spend.  We can't sign Duncan cause Gaston won't pay him.  Bottom
>line, even if he wanted to come, it would not happen.

The problem is not what Gaston is willing to spend, and it's not because of
Gaston's unwillingness to spend on Duncan that we can't sign. To say that
is, to use your favorite expression, factually wrong. I'd bet anything that
Gaston would gladly pay Duncan anything allowed by the salary cap if 1) we
had enough room on it (which we don't); and 2)if Duncan wanted to come here
(which he doesn't). You're confusing Pitino's excuses to get rid of players
with Gaston's alleged unwillingness to pay for talent. While Gaston is no
Paul Allen, he proved his willingness to pay by giving Antoine, a far
lesser player than Duncan, the max. 

 
>For you to state that I am a fan of Pitino is factually wrong.  And your
>writing style, ie:  "question the sanity" contains implications that are not
>factually correct.

Fine. Did or did not Starke Farrell describe your comments regarding Pitino
critics as "Finally, some sanity". If so, can a reasonable person therefore
deduce from that statement that Starke would NOT call the Pitino's critics'
posts sane?

>My point remains that, if you think that Pitino is the problem here, you have
>fallen prey to the ever present idea in American sports, "if we arent'
>winning,
>let's fire the coach."  It is easy to bash the coach, blame the coach, etc.,
>and in my opinion, you are wrong when you do it.  Factually wrong.  But it is
>an easy thing, and on this list, a popular thing to do.

I haven't fallen prey to anything. I have watched his vaunted "system" fail
in the NBA, both offensively and defensively, for 3 years. I have heard him
blame everything and everyone for this failure - players, schedule,
injuries, the salary cap, the allegedly stingy owner, the ping-pong balls
not bouncing his way despite there being only a 36% chance, even the media
and the fans - before taking any blame himself. We are the worst defensive
team in the league. Is that factually wrong? Or am I factually wrong when I
refuse to believe that Rick's defensive scheme is good and fine, and we
just happen to have the 12 worst defensive players in the league by some
incredible coincidence? We are 12 games under .500. Is it factually wrong
to state that we can do better with the players WE HAVE, since M.L., the
incompetent coach that he is, did just as well when he was coaching to win
(in 95'-'96)without having the likes of Walker, Pierce, Potapenko and Kenny
Anderson on his team. Who was better on that team than these guys?
    
>Now I do think that Dorine is correct about personnel moves that Rick has
>made.  And there was a column the other day that made a good point.  Rick
>needs
>to coach and should not be in control of the personnel decisions.  Gaston
>needs
>to do two things, get out his check book, and hire a real GM that can
stand up
>to RP.  Then, when they have the right players, and Walker grows up, Rick
will
>be able to coach a championship team.
>
>Again, since you made the point of mentioning me personally in your post as a
>Pitino supporter.  I am not a Pitino supporter as much as I am for the
fans on
>this list to take a realistic view of our talent and situation and realize
>that
>firing Pitino is not not the solution.  And, for the factual record, I
made >the
>statement that if Pitino can not have this team winning by the end of the
>2001-02 season, he should be fired.  If you are going to name my name and
>characterize me as one who will "will probably always find a way to exonerate
>him and blame something or somebody else," at least get your facts correct.

You seemed to defend Pitino in your post by stating "WE DO NOT HAVE THE
TALENT OR MATURITY TO BE A GOOD TEAM", when, IMO, it's very obvious that
we're not doing nearly as well as we could due to Pitino's coaching
(leaving aside his GM'ing for the time being).  You've been taking this
view for as long as I can remember, and I do not have the time to research
your entire posting history on this list to see if you've ever posted
anything critical of Pitino. 


>Question:
>
>If the Celtics make the playoffs next year, will you post to the list giving
>credit to Pitino for his coaching, or will you find some negative spin to put
>on it, like, "well if it wasn't for Pitino we would have won the
>championship?"

It depends on whether it was due to his coaching (which would necessarily
require abandoning his "headless chicken outbreak" schemes as a minimum),
or some other factor, like adding talented players.  

>And finally, my point is that the Pitino bashers is that they expect instant
>gratification (except Dorine who for some reason has lost her patience) and
>don't have the patience to wait until the process can work itself out.
But, >if Gaston won't open the checkbook, it won't happen no matter who the
coach >is.

If anything, Gaston's been too willing to open the checkbook. I can't speak
for the other Pitino "bashers", as you call us, but I don't expect instant
gratification (presumably meaning a championship or a strong showing in the
playoffs). What I DO expect is to see players playing hard, being in shape,
and the team generally heading in the right direction - the minima that
Pitino promised during his coronation almost 3 years ago. With a few
exceptions, I don't see it. Do you?

>Last year, the management of the Knicks wanted to fire Van Gundy, but he got
>them to the finals.  Did he suddenly learn how to coach at the end of the
>season?  There are a lot of factors at work. Bashing the coach when you are
>not winning is the easy and most popular trap to fall into.  If you think the
>Celtics have the talent and experience to be a top NBA team, then it is
easy >to blame Rick.  But, in my opinion, you should go back and
re-evaluate our
>talent.  Cause we don't got it.  It is not Rick.
>
>On the other hand, give Pitino Tim Duncan and I bet he will be as good of a
>coach as say that guy who coached the Spurs to the championship.

No, the team would do better, but most likely not as well as it could given
the improvement in talent level. I think my expectations are scaled
according to the talent level of the team, as they should be, and my point
is that with the increase in talent there has been no commensurate increase
in performance - quite the opposite. M.L. could do just as well, if not
better, with this team, for $200,000/yr. 

>You comments are improper and factually wrong.  You should take more care.

It's your opinion. Impropriety is in the eye of the beholder, and I can not
prove that you're a Pitino supporter if you claim not to be one. As regards
my other statements, you've said nothing to prove their factual
incorrectness.