re: Celtics Delusions & Bleak Future

[bird <birdwl@earthlink.net>]

> From: Way Of The Ray <wayray@ix.netcom.com>
>
> A nice unbiased opinion filled with clarity, not the
> local yahooism....

Horse hockey.  "Local yahooism" notwithstanding, just because you agree 
with him doesn't make him "unbiased".  He writes for the competition (so 
to speak), after all.  You may think his analysis is correct (more on 
that later), but if you really think he's unbiased, you're quite naive.

> From: Matt Steinmitz - Contra Costa Times

> But the fact of the matter is, if you miss the
> playoffs in the Eastern Conference and go 36-46 in the process, you're
> far more of a bad team than a good one.

OK, fair enough, if you want to use the team record as an indication of 
success, that's OK.  Given that, the Celts are more "bad" than they are 
"good" (i.e. more losses than wins).  Let's just keep that in mind, 
shall we?  (BTW, I don't think anyone is saying we're a "great" team, or 
even a "really good" one.)

> Just listen to general manager Chris Wallace.
>
> "We have an outstanding nucleus of young players who we can build upon,
> and the possibility of three first-round picks in the upcoming draft,"
> Wallace said. "That gives us some flexibility, not just to exercise
> those picks but to consider the possibility of doing some other things
> like making a trade. So we have a nucleus to build upon, and assets to
> use. It's a very exciting time for me, personally, and I think for this
> franchise."

I hardly think it's in the franchise's best interest to come out and say 
"Boy, we suck hard, our players suck hard, management sucks hard -- we 
just plain suck, Bob."  Whether or not Wallace truly believes what he's 
saying is debatable, but it's a debate with no real answer, as _nobody 
knows_.  In other words, while Wallace's words do not bode well for 
those wishing to upgrade the talent on the team, I wouldn't slit my 
wrists yet, as he might be ... wait for it ... posturing in the media.  
Ya think?

> Is Wallace kidding? OK, he's got a legitimate player in Paul Pierce. But
> after that, the Celtics are still a mess. Their roster is still filled
> with an assortment of bad names (Kenny Anderson, Tony Battie, Walter
> McCarty, Mark Blount, Vitaly Potapenko) and their other so-called star,
> Antoine Walker, is still extremely flawed.

Nice.  Paul Pierce is only a "legitimate player"?  Try one of the best 
swingmen in the league.

Battie was actually showing more consistency before his injury.

Mark Blount is _from the IBL_!  We pay him the minimum.  I always hear 
about how we "overpay" for Walker, et al., but few who say that give any 
credit for grabbing this legitimate (if not actually really good) NBA 
7-footer for minimal money.  Especially after the parade of so-called 
big men we've had running through the roster in recent years.

And, of course, the quip about Walker being a "so-called star" and 
"extremely flawed".  Well, he might be right.  _I_ don't think so, but 
how can one refute the Media Giant that is the Contra Costa TImes, 
anyway?  I bet they've won at least one major local media award in the 
last thirty years or so.

> You could make a case that Boston's future is far more bleak than any
> Western Conference non-playoff team, including the Warriors.

LOL!  Yes, you could make that case, but you'd be a fool.  Remember 
those records?  Let's compare, shall we?  Celtics: 36-46.  (Not good.  
Mediocre at best.  Still, "ninth seed" in the East [admittedly, much 
weaker than the West]).  Now The Worriers: 17-65.  (Wow, talk about 
sucking.  That's good enough for them to be the second-worst team _in 
the entire league_.  Only da Bulls are worse.  Hell, Vancouver had a 
better record!)

You might argue that the East is weak.  OK, but Golden State's record 
against the East was only slightly better than it was vs. the West: 8-22 
(that's a .364 winning percentage, for those keeping score at home -- 
hmmm, less than Boston's, isn't it?)  Who's "a mess" now, huh?  Who's 
"delusional" now, would you say?  Sheesh.  (OK, head-to-head, GS beat 
the C's twice, but as far as who's better, I'll take the statistical "N" 
of 82 games vs. 2 games anyday -- much better sample size, eh?)

Thank god you keep us informed as to the biased opinions of some East 
Bay suburb sportswritin' yahoo, ray/way/kai.

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