RE: Trying to make up my mind...

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

I'm not saying anything different about Moiso. But Philly saw something
there they liked, and Larry Brown has a pretty good track record in these
things. But that's not the point. All I'm saying is we basically sold him
(unless the first-rounder can be stretched out until the Sixers slide), and
I don't like money deals. Do I care if Moiso is sitting on our bench or
someone else's? No, but now that we know that someone in the league still
saw Moiso as desirable, I wish we could have turned him into something to
help the team-not just more money. Maybe the first-rounder turns out better
than we expect, but it's doubtful. Plus, this year's was an incredibly deep
draft, but look at the names after Forte's and see how many make it in the
league as useful players. There won't be many.

Look, we have five guys on this team who basically are untouchable-Pierce,
Walker, Johnson, K.Brown and Forte. We have four more who basically are
untradeable-Kenny, Eric Williams, Walter McCarty, Randy Brown. Blount and
Palacio are more valuable to the Celts than anything they could return in
trade. The team, under its current direction, has very few tradable assets.
Moiso, as clueless as he was, still was a tradable asset because of his
size, athleticism and lottery pick reputation. And the Celtics gave him away
to clear the salary a year early. That's what bothers me. Moiso alone
wouldn't have netted much, but Moiso and Vitaly? Moiso and a pick? See what
I'm saying? Philly needs a backup center, and they're willing to discuss
Eric Snow... 

If we had gained cap room or gotten under the luxury tax, I'd completely
understand this trade. And we still may salvage it by packaging McLeod's
expiring contract with someone at the trading deadline. That's yet to be
seen. But right now, knowing only what we know, I think we sold away Moiso
to save some money. Did we lose anything? No, but with a different approach,
we might actually have gained something.

Mark

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Shawn Niles [mailto:shizzjr@hotmail.com] 
Sent:	Monday, August 06, 2001 5:03 PM
To:	berrym@BATTELLE.ORG; awang@MIT.EDU; celtics@igtc.com
Subject:	RE: Trying to make up my mind...

I have to say that I don't understand you arguments, Mark. Anyone who has 
seen Moiso can plainly see how lost he is. If he ever develops past the 
garbage time player that he is now, it will be a miracle. Moiso makes Acie 
Earl look like Bill Russell. In all my years, I have never seen a player 
that is more lost than Jerome Moiso.


>From: "Berry, Mark  S" <berrym@BATTELLE.ORG>
>To: "'Alexander Wang'" <awang@MIT.EDU>,   "Berry, Mark  S"  
><berrym@BATTELLE.ORG>,   "'celtics@igtc.com'" <celtics@igtc.com>
>Subject: RE: Trying to make up my mind...
>Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 14:38:37 -0400
>
>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).
>
>I think we dumped salary just to save money, not to actually accomplish
>anything in the long run, and that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I think,
>considering the Celtics' woeful frontcourt, the advantages of waiting it 
>out
>with Moiso outweigh the advantage of pocketing a million bucks a year from
>now. Instead, we liquidated an asset that had at least marginal interest
>around the league. Of course, we may yet come out of it smelling like a 
>rose
>if the first-rounder ends up being a winner five years from now. In that
>regard, it could end up being like the Mercer trade-if Kedrick Brown pans
>out, the whole Fortson and Eric Williams fiasco will seem worth it. And 
>this
>first-rounder certainly came at a lesser cost than Ron Mercer. Unless 
>McLeod
>is a revelation, this trade all comes down to the first-rounder... and
>Moiso. What if he actually pans out? Do you think Philly fans were saying
>the same thing about Nazr Mohammed that we have been saying about Jerome
>Moiso?
>
>Anyway, it's probably too much discussion for what really amounts to a 
>money
>move for the Celts. It's not going to change anything on the court this
>year. I'm still waiting for that move, but it doesn't seem to be in the
>offing.
>
>Mark
>
>
>
>  -----Original Message-----
>From: 	Alexander Wang [mailto:awang@MIT.EDU]
>Sent:	Monday, August 06, 2001 2:20 PM
>To:	Berry, Mark  S; 'celtics@igtc.com'
>Subject:	Re: Trying to make up my mind...
>
>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


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp