RE: Trying to make up my mind...

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

I agree on everything here, Alex, and I was trying to make the same point
about the complexion of the trade changing if they turn McLeod into a nice
deadline deal. For example, a veteran team like the Spurs seems desperate
for a scoring small forward with size. Maybe they overpay for McLeod at the
deadline by offering a first-rounder or a player that better fits our needs.
Or maybe an over-the-tax team that expected to contend becomes desperate to
shed a contract and makes a bad basketball deal. All of those are variables
on the McLeod-Moiso deal.

But just dealing in what we see, we exchanged one 12th man for another 12th
man with a shorter contract. We pick up a pick that probably isn't worth
much and save some money after this season. The questions are-do we turn
McLeod into something at the deadline, what do we do with the money we
saved, and how good is the pick? If the answers are "no, nothing and late
first-round" then I think we would have been better off holding onto Moiso
and hoping the light went on. But it's impossible to know those answers.

As for Kestas' statement that I'm eager to trade off anyone and everyone
(especially Antoine), that's simply not true. I've been advocating moves to
help this team get better in the short-term. I'm not against trading
Antoine, if it improves the team, but my contention since the draft has been
that we've added talent, now it's time to address team needs by filling in
around the edges. Anyone who follows this team can see it needs help up
front and at point guard, yet when we finally make a trade, it's for another
6-8 swingman. I say it's time to improve the team while keeping one eye on
the big picture. Joe H. has made the point much better than I could that
this team is going to need to win to gain some legitimacy. It's important,
and just spinning the wheels waiting for that nebulous "future" isn't good
enough. The pieces for a bright future are in place, now it's time to think
about the present. You think this team couldn't use Anthony Mason? He's out
there, he's available, and the Heat are more than willing to work a
sign-and-trade. If we could do it for Vitaly and Randy Brown, or Vitaly and
a lottery-protected No. 1, isn't it worth it? You wonder why I'm not
shouting from the rooftops because we finally made a trade? It's because
even this trade was made not to improve this year's team, but to improve the
bank account for "the future." With a few moves, this team is good enough
right now. We can have our cake and eat it too by winning now and watching
the rookies develop. That's what I want, and that's what I keep harping on.
Are any of the other points really that hard to understand? If Moiso was
worth an expiring contract and a pick, then what would Moiso and a pick have
been worth? Moiso, Vitaly and a pick? Maybe instead of saving a million
bucks, we could have actually improved the team. But whatever... we'll just
wait until Kenny comes off the books two years from now. Or is it when
Williams comes off the books the year after? Which one of those years are we
going to try to improve our frontcourt and point guard problems? Or will we
be too worried about maximum extensions for Joe Johnson and Kedrick Brown to
make any major changes then?

Mark

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Alexander Wang [mailto:awang@MIT.EDU] 
Sent:	Monday, August 06, 2001 3:24 PM
To:	Berry, Mark  S; Berry, Mark  S; 'celtics@igtc.com'
Subject:	RE: Trying to make up my mind...

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).