Re: Trying to make up my mind...

[Alexander Wang <awang@MIT.EDU>]

At 11:30 AM 8/6/01, Berry, Mark  S wrote:
>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.

I actually did a rough calculation of our tax position a while back and I 
believe that this understanding is incorrect. I think that we were going to 
be right up against luxury tax before the Moiso move with just the current 
players This does make a big difference in evaluating our lack of free 
agent moves. However, you're probably right that getting his small salary 
off the books is probably not that significant, unless it is right at that 
point where it'll affect whether we can offer a full exception or not. 
Peter May did bring up a point during a recent article that we may have 
trouble retaining Mark Blount next year given the recent contracts given to 
Calvin Booth and Todd McCulloch. It's possible that getting rid of Moiso's 
contract may open just enough breathing room to retain him, assuming he 
doesn't get an offer that we can't match under the restricted free agent 
rule. But I think that this financial factor is minor.

>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.

I definitely don't know much about McLeod except that his stats look 
decidedly mediocre. My feeling is that he's not meant as a veteran upgrade 
over Stith. I think the Celtics already decided that bringing Stith back 
isn't feasible, maybe because he doesn't want to play for a team that is 
practically guaranteed to dump him after a year. Even so, I think they want 
some "veteran" (i.e. non-rookie) depth at this position in the short term, 
which McLeod can possibly provide. I think the question is not whether 
he'll beat out Joe Johnson, but whether he can beat out Eric Williams for 
some minutes as the "veteran defensive swingman", at least early in the 
season. Williams shot under 38% (vs 46% for McLeod) from 2 point range last 
season. Williams did shoot 33% on 3's and got to the line a lot, which are 
both things that McLeod is evidently incapable of. Actually his stats and 
reviews of his game make me think that he's "Mercer Lite", with the same 
midrange offensive focus at a decent percentage, lack of rebounding, FTs, 
and 3's, and a game focused on coming off screens instead of creating on 
his own. But definitely I can't imagine him having anything but a marginal 
impact.

>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.

It seems like you're saying that you thought we got value in the deal, just 
not value that actually fits a need. I think that this might be somewhat 
accurate but maybe you're overestimating the value of McLeod here. If we 
could have gotten a center or point guard of a similar marginal caliber as 
McLeod, I don't know whether that would have fit a need either. "Throwing 
in a pick" is interesting. I'd actually see it as trading a pick and 
"throwing in Moiso", who would be the lesser value, unless there were 
significant protections on the pick. And I wouldn't want to trade an 
unprotected first rounder for anything less than a solid starting center or 
point guard. I doubt most teams have an extra one to give up just for a 
first rounder (and Moiso) though. My guess is that filling in these needs 
is going to require a more significant trade.

So I agree that the trade didn't accomplish that much, but I don't really 
think we could have gotten much better based on what Moiso has shown up 
until now. I don't really think that this trade "proves" that Moiso had 
enough value to fill a need or shed more salaries, even with the help of a 
first rounder, unless you believe that McLeod actually represents decent 
value beyond his expiring salary.

Alex