Re: Things seem a little tense around here.

["Jim Meninno" <jim_meninno@hotmail.com>]

>From: opi@unesco.org

>But I've come to realize that Pierce for Shareef won't work cap wise, even 
>we can dump Anderson and William's contracts for second round draft picks. 
>Aren't we 11 million over the cap?

I would think that if Pierce gets dealt this summer for a big name player, 
Dana could be used with him.  Together they make 5 million this year, and 
Dana has 1 year left on his contract.  That's not enough to fit a Shareef or 
Grant Hill, so I guess the other team would have to be willing to take on 
somebody like Eric Williams, Greg Minor, Walter or a re-signed Fortson.  Is 
next year Greg Minor's last year?  Can he be traded while injured?  If a 
team really wanted Pierce, they might look at a package of him and Barros 
and Minor (totals around 8 million, 6 million of which expire in 1 year) 
plus some cash and a first rounder.  That doesn't sound like chopped liver 
to me, although I don't know if it gets you Grant Hill.

I'm not sure I'm ready to do a trade like this, though.  I know a lot of you 
are making a pretty good case that the nucleus of this team isn't ever going 
to contend for a championship, but I don't see how trading for a Grant Hill, 
even though I think he's one of the best players in the game, changes that.  
I think at some point, the team is going to need to stay together for a 
while (i.e., more than one season), without major changes.  If you trade a 
core player for anything less than a sure thing, superstar, dominant, 
ride-my-back-to-the-finals kind of player, then you're just putting the 
development of the team back.  LA signed one of the only one of those 
players around, and it's still taken them years to put it together.

On the other hand, you can let the players you do have grow, and add through 
the three first rounders coming in the next two years.  I know this is the 
long approach, but if you can't get a can't miss superstar, it's the only 
way to go.  Teams like Indiana and Utah weren't that good overnight.  A big 
reason they are so good is that they have been together so long.  I know 
neither of them have won titles, but that has a lot to do with a dynasty the 
likes of which we are unlikely to see again for some time.

I don't want to be patient, I just don't see any viable alternative.  If any 
of you can see a move that turns the Celtics into true contenders now, 
without mentioning names like Mutumbo and Robinson who might give you a 
couple of years at most, I'm ready to jump on the bandwagon.

Jim
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com