Trying to make up my mind...

["Berry, Mark S" <berrym@BATTELLE.ORG>]

I still haven't settled on which side of the fence I'm going to choose on
the Moiso-McLeod trade. For most of the weekend, I was pretty sure I didn't
like it. Here's why:

I think it was Alex who said of the luxury tax, that it doesn't matter how
far over you go, you're still over and still paying the tax (and missing out
on the tax payments from the tax-payers). That's true, but it's also true
that it doesn't matter how far under the threshold you are, you're still
under. My understanding was the Celtics were positioned to be under the
threshold for the next couple of years, even factoring in Pierce's extension
kicking in and other raises. Moiso had a relatively small salary
anyway-there certainly are more significant contracts on the roster if
you're looking to dump-and his rookie deal could expire after that third
season (at the same time as Kenny's, and supposedly when we're targeting our
free agent push). So I looked at this deal and basically saw a salary
dump-getting out of the final year of Moiso's contract. McLeod certainly
isn't the player or veteran presence Bryant Stith was, so if you believe
Stith's role was filled by Joe Johnson and Kedrick Brown, then I seen no
reason to believe McLeod will play significant minutes. He'll have to be
healthy for the first time in his career to even get a real chance. The
first-round pick, I thought, was a non-issue.

But I started to think about the first-rounder. The window for claiming it
is stretched out long enough that, eventually, it could be valuable. Like
Joe said, Larry Brown won't be around much longer. Mutombo is bound to slow
down eventually, and you never know what's going to happen with Iverson. The
team has potential to slide quickly. I still feel the same about the basic
exchange. Unless it was made specifically with another move in mind that
would have added salary in Moiso's third year (and it doesn't appear that's
the case), then I believe it was a salary dump just to save money-not to get
under the tax limit or the cap. And I abhor salary dumps, unless there's a
goal in mind. I'd rather ride it out with Moiso and see if a light goes on
than give him up just to pad someone's pocketbook. After all, players
(especially big men) have been known to develop slowly from time to time.
And this guy was so young in terms of basketball development... With this
trade they completely gave up on him, and it seems early for that. 

I do have some questions about the first-rounder, however. At least one
story I read seemed to indicate the Celts had to take the pick next year (or
as soon as possible) if it didn't fall in the lottery. That's not correct,
is it? If that's the case, then it was a terrible deal.

One last note on this trade... Moiso obviously had some value. He netted a
more proven player, on a shorter contract, and a first-round pick. Those are
some valuable commodities in the NBA. My biggest problem with the trade is
this: He had value. He's one of the few bodies on the roster, other than
Walker, Pierce and the rookies, who apparently had some value in the league
(granted, not huge value, but at least not negative value, like Kenny, Eric
Williams, Walter McCarty, Randy Brown and Tony Battie). Anyway, he had
value, and we traded him without addressing a need. We added a player where
we already have a surplus. What might we have gotten for Moiso if we were
the ones throwing in the first-round pick? Could we have accomplished some
legitimate salary help by packaging him with a bad contract like Kenny,
Williams or Brown? It just seems like we traded an asset and accomplished
very little.

My final assessment? It's really a non-factor kind of deal, but I don't
really like it. Of course, there could always be behind-the-scenes factors
like chemistry problems or something, but I'm not going to speculate on
that. Based on the facts, I don't like the deal.

Mark