Re: Trying to make up my mind...

["Jim Meninno" <jam@london.com>]

----- Original Message ----- From: "Berry, Mark S" <berrym@BATTELLE.ORG>

> Look, we have five guys on this team who basically are untouchable-Pierce,
> Walker, Johnson, K.Brown and Forte.

Really?  If that's the case, you might as well unplug the phone, because
without trading one of these guys nothing significant is going to happen.  I
wouldn't call *anyone* on the team untouchable, although I suspect the
Celtics would say Pierce is, and considering his extension must make him a
BYC player, I'll give you that one.  Other than that, what player you listed
wouldn't you include in a deal to get a quality big man?  If the answer is
"none", then they're not untouchable.

>We have four more who basically are untradeable-Kenny, Eric Williams,
Walter >McCarty, Randy Brown.

You've been saying for days that anyone with an expiring contract is
tradeable.  I agree with that, so Walter would have some limited trade
value.

> Blount and Palacio are more valuable to the Celts than anything they could
return in
> trade.

Probably, but you never know what might be on offer for Blount.  What if
there was a really good draft pick available?  You'd have to be tempted.
What if someone was offering a really good point guard, but wanted Milt in
the package in return?  Of course you'd agree to that.  It's like you were
saying about Moiso.  If he's got some value, what could you get if you
offered something else, too?

> The team, under its current direction, has very few tradable assets.

You left out Battie and Potapenko who are both secured to long term
contracts for relatively little money compared to most mediocre big men
around the league.  Both of those guys have definite trade value.  Of course
they also have all of their draft picks intact and an extra one from the
Moiso trade.  The only guys I'd say were not tradeable would be Anderson and
Williams.  Randy Brown has negative value, and would only be traded to make
salaries balance.  And then there's Pierce who basically has too much value
to trade with BYC status.

All in all, the team has a lot of options on the trade market if they decide
to go that route.  I don't think they intend to, though.  But that's out of
choice, not because they have no assets.  I've been targeting this summer
for years as the summer to consider making major player moves.  Gaston
decided to change the leadership rather than the players.  One thing at a
time, I suppose.  The only asset that has become harder to trade this summer
has been Pierce, because of the effects of his extension.  So there's no
real harm done.  I'd feel better with a more proven GM in place, but Gaston
is giving Wallace a shot, so we've just got to see how he does.

> 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.

You've made your opinion about this trade absolutely clear, Mark.  You don't
like to see trades made for financial reasons.  Well, that's modern pro
sports, I'm afraid.  Every trade has financial implications.  My problem
with the trade is not so much with what they got, but rather with what it
confirms about Moiso.  He's either a total bust of a player in the Celtics'
eyes or enough of a malcontent to warrant trading him for very little in
return.

Jim

P.S. We're all still waiting for someone to uncover exactly what the
conditions are on that Philly pick.  Let's go people!  What do we pay you
for anyway?  Sheesh.