RE: Trying to make up my mind...

[Alexander Wang <awang@MIT.EDU>]

Mark,

Generally agree on most points. You seem to say that the main value in the 
trade is an expiring contract and a first round pick. What I would add is 
that both of these are flexible assets that can be packaged in other deals 
and re-traded. Whether we added to a logjam or not at that position is 
insignificant in my opinion, because we are talking about 11th and 12th and 
injury list positions on the depth chart. Now, we can argue about how they 
use the expiring contract - if it has no implications on their free agent 
moves except to save Paul Gaston a million bucks, I agree that's worthless 
to the team. If it gets us another million under the tax and makes the 
difference in retaining Blount if he has a good year, then that's 
definitely worth something. If they package him in another trade, that's 
good too.

Anyway, in terms of filling needs, I think that we've had enough shuffling 
around of backup quality players. The top 8 on the chart are going to make 
the difference. If McLeod were a fourth string center instead of a fourth 
string swingman, it wouldn't affect this team one bit. I just don't think 
that Moiso had enough value to get a top 8 player, especially in our need 
positions. Throw in a first round pick and maybe; but remember that a first 
rounder and DeClercq, who must have at least as much value as Moiso, netted 
us Potapenko. I don't think we'd do any better than that.

Which reminds me. DeClercq was traded to Orlando for Matt Harpring, who was 
essentially traded to Philadelphia for Tyrone Hill. So you could argue that 
we could have had Tyrone Hill and Shawn Marion instead of Potapenko. These 
types of thoughts aren't too healthy.

Does anyone have information about the draft pick? Is it Philly's option or 
our option on when it is used? Seems like that would make a big difference.

Alex

At 02:38 PM 8/6/01, Berry, Mark  S wrote:
>But that's just it, Alex... McLeod on the face of it doesn't have that much
>value. But as an expiring contract, he does have some value in these luxury
>tax times. He could possibly land a team some talent in a Cliff
>Robinson-type trade. His value, because of the expiring contract, is more
>significant than his play or stats would suggest. So I don't think the
>return on Moiso was insignificant in that regard. And maybe the Celts will
>turn Moiso into a more significant talent at the trade deadline, when a team
>may be desperate to dump a contract. That's certainly possible.
>
>Speculation on what other deals might have been out there for Moiso is just
>that-speculation. But my point is that he held some value. The Sixers gave
>up a respectable role player and a first-round pick to get Moiso. There was
>no contract advantage or anything like that for them. They wanted Moiso. So
>there was interest. We talk about drafting for talent as opposed to need and
>sorting out the logjam with trades. Well, here's a great example of doing
>exactly the opposite. We actually added to a logjam by trading away one of
>our few tradable assets. Now McLeod's only value to us is in his expiring
>contract, because barring some completely unpredictable career year, he's in
>Boston only to play out a contract and, as you pointed out, take away Eric
>Williams' minutes (thankfully).