Re: [Fwd: May On The Accountability of Wallace/Papile

[bird <birdwl@earthlink.net>]

> From: Kestutis.Kveraga@dartmouth.edu (Kestutis Kveraga)
>
> Yup, and the one where they give up all three picks to get rid of Kenny 
> and
> pick up Laettner is even worse. Ok, so they didn't do them, but if they 
> even
> seriously considered those deals - and it seems that they did -  that 
> speaks
> volumes of the current thinking in the Celtics brain(dead) trust.

You said it yourself, Kestas -- they didn't do them.  Can we try to 
rememeber that just because Peter May reports it, doesn't make it true?  
Couldn't it be that they were offered these deals and turned them down 
after (briefly? politely?) considering them?  I'm not going to come down 
on people for what they may have considered.  Granted, they might well 
have seriously considered these mind-bendingly foolish deals, but nobody 
knows -- either way.  Seems unfair to me to criticize management for 
this one.

> It's also possible that the pressure to seek deals like these is coming 
> from
> Thanksdad who, after the free-spending fiasco with Pitino, is now 
> operating in
> a "fiscally resposible" mode: give up potential talent to clear 
> salaries, keep
> the current (undoubtedly very low-priced) management crew, don't hire 
> anyone
> new, find good-bang-for-the-buck CBA players etc. The problem with this
> strategy, obviously, is that while it'll help Thanksdad's bottom line, 
> it won't
> help our winning % very much.

This is what worries me.  Don't rock the boat, get your money's worth, 
build the team to be "fiscally responsible" (i.e. make a profit) as 
opposed to win basketball games.  Not good for the team.  Thanksdad saw 
what overpaying Poultrino got him, and now he won't pay to play (just 
conjecture).  The possibility that this is the guiding strategy for the 
franchise makes me squirm.  There's got to be a middle ground between 
the free-spendin' Paul Allen, who allows his GM to build a team without 
regard to chemistry, but with plenty of moolah, and a possible 
cheapskate who wouldn't want to spend the moolah when he needs to.

Maybe I should follow my own advice and not criticize management for 
what they haven't done ... yet, but the evidence is stacking up to 
support the view that this, _this_ is the long-term strategy for the 
team.  Still, maybe it'll turn out differently.

> All this talk about us not needing any more rookies is making me really 
> nervous

In past seasons, I haven't been in favor of a major roster shake-up, and 
I'm still not.  But it's my feeling that the franchise is teetering on 
the brink of success or failure.  The time is now for a bold move, some 
move like the Celtics of old would pull off, something where the team 
gets an advantage.  OK, maybe that's too much to hope for, but 
something, get a quality free agent, finagle some sort of salary cap 
relief and/or get rid of our albatrosses.  Something.  Maybe that bold 
move is drafting well and integrating the quality rookies into the 
rotation as soon as possible in order to get them up to near full-speed 
by the end of the season or the year after.  I don't know.  Again: 
something.

And you're right: we need talent.  Talent to either use or trade 
eventually to get the position player (probably big man or PG, as usual) 
we need down the stretch.  The other thing that worries me is this talk 
that the big men we have make us set for years to come.  Yes, all three 
are capable NBA backups wth the potential to be more.  None are starting 
quality now.  Then again, I don't mind Wallace, et al. talking up our 
centers for their own confidence, trade value, etc., and that may be 
what is occuring.  Still, it _does_ worry me that they actually think 
our three-headed center is in the top half of quality.  Maybe they would 
be, if we could play two or even three of them at a time ... .

> I'm afraid, very afraid...

Welcome to the off-season!  I hate it.

Regards.

(The Celtic "Tird",
  Celticus "tirdius")
mailto:celtictird@yahoo.com