Re: more scuttlebutt

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

Actually I have no problem with the principles in this trade (although I'd guess
it would probably be one or the other, rather than both Camby and Strickland). I
also agree with Mark in the sense that if we want conclusive evidence about the
"Poultry in Motion" defensive system in the NBA, then Poultrino at least
deserves to succeed or fail with the right kind of players.

Also, it seems like the right moment to take advantage of the Knicks'
psychological need for someone to fill Ewing's enforcer role. But I do think
Boston also has room and a clear need on the roster for one big man who can hold
his ground on half-court post defense. I mean we're only talking about only one
roster spot after all. That really shouldn't stand in the way of Pitino
implementing his headless chicken outbreak or be an excuse if it fails again.

Strickland had a good season last year. He took a lot of threes and made a lot
of threes (73-186). He had better than a two-to-one assist to turnovers ratio,
and came up with over 1.5 steals per game. He played just under 30 minutes and
averaged just under 13 points on .433 overall shooting.

As for Marcus Gumby, I don't like him much. Gumby's more than a "weightroom
away" at just 225 pounds. He's not as good an athlete as Battie (I've seen
Battie outplay him easily I thought), and we've got Moiso too. He's a good
shotblocker but not that great compared to his reputation. Since averaging 3.65
three seasons ago, he's only averaged 1.6 and 1.9 in the past two years. Only
1.6 in the playoffs, too. I don't know what his attitude has been like lately.
He's really not doing much with his talent, if you ask me.

BTW a lot of people treat Mark Blount as some sort of insurance policy for
losing Vitaly, since Blount reportedly carries over 250 pounds on his frame in
stark comparison to our other skinny big men. But look, this guy started I think
every game in the Shaw league and, correct me if I'm wrong Francis Hsu, but
amassed something like 4.0 rebounds per contest or something like that.
Meanwhile, a bunch of people we may never hear from again made the All-Shaw
league team (no Celtics). That was a weak league. Until proven otherwise against
real competition, Blount should remain in our minds the next Eric Riley/Dwayne
Shintzius.

If memory serves me, Eric Riley actually opened the 1998 season with two
straight double figure rebounding games, before fading into total oblivion. So I
can't get too excited about anything Blount's proven to this point. We'll see I
guess.

Do the Knicks trade? Yeah, why not.

Joe

-------

"Berry, Mark S" wrote:

> Apparently, the Knicks still are talking to the Celts about Vitaly. It
> doesn't involve Houston, but the names on the other end being tossed around
> are Camby and Erick Strickland. I have no idea how any salaries work,  or if
> there would be others involved, but word is it's being discussed. Of course,
> the Knicks are trying first to get either Mutombo or Webber, but failing
> that, have their sights set on Vitaly or Matt Geiger.
>
> It would be an interesting move, and signal a lot of faith in Battie and
> Blount. It seems clear from some of the things we've been hearing that
> Pitino considers Vitaly expendable. He wants to press a lot--much more than
> we even suspect, I'm betting--and he can't do it with Vitaly on the floor.
> Camby, Battie, Blount, Moiso--I can see Joe's face getting red
> already--would be one thin frontcourt, but also a fast, athletic one.
>
> Strickland would be a nice addition. He can play both guard spots and may
> even be a starting SG in Boston.
>
> My opinion: 1. If Pitino is committed to the press (and I mean really
> committed to it), then do it. 2. Even if you don't like the structure of the
> team after this trade, you have to admit that Camby and Strickland are a
> pretty good return on Vitaly. These same names were being tossed around in
> the Kemp/Grant talks.
>
> Anyway, it's just one of many things being discussed right now, I'm sure.
> Thought I'd throw it out there to stir up some conversation.
>
> Mark