Re: Trying to make up my mind...

["Thomas Murphy" <tfmiii@worldnet.att.net>]

> But my guess is that their thinking
> went like this: they get a chance to audition a decent player and a pick
that
> could eventually be pretty good (I think it can be used until 2008?) in
> exchange for freeing up a bit of cap space for the '02-03 season in case a
free
> agent they like comes along (the same reason they didn't sign El-Amin).
All
> this while getting rid of a guy who had attitude and work ethic problems.
> Sounds like a good deal to me.

I agree, sounds like a good deal - in this case, addition by subtraction.
Anything elso is a bonus. BTW I get the impression that Philly may get to
choose when to convey the pick - this has yet to be clarified.

Cheers - TomM

> ------------------------------
>
> Date: 06 Aug 2001 14:41:31 EDT
> From: Kestutis.Kveraga@dartmouth.edu (Kestutis Kveraga)
> Subject: Re: Trying to make up my mind...
>
> - --- You 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.
> - --- end of quote ---
>
> The problem is that they don't know exactly where the threshold is going
to be.
> Unless the Celtics are well under even the lowest projections, I don't
think we
> can assume that they'll definitely be under. Wallace has mentioned they'll
be
> "dangerously close" when Pierce's extension kicks in; now, he could just
be
> spinning it to explain the FA situation. But my guess is that their
thinking
> went like this: they get a chance to audition a decent player and a pick
that
> could eventually be pretty good (I think it can be used until 2008?) in
> exchange for freeing up a bit of cap space for the '02-03 season in case a
free
> agent they like comes along (the same reason they didn't sign El-Amin).
All
> this while getting rid of a guy who had attitude and work ethic problems.
> Sounds like a good deal to me.
>
>
> - --- You wrote:
> goal in mind. I'd rather ride it out with Moiso and see if a light goes on
> than give him up just to pad someone's pocketbook. After all, players
> (especially big men) have been known to develop slowly from time to time.
> And this guy was so young in terms of basketball development... With this
> trade they completely gave up on him, and it seems early for that.
> - --- end of quote ---
>
> Weren't you the one advocating trading anyone and everyone (foremost
Antoine)
> to improve the team and who thought that my desire to keep the nucleus
together
> was zany? Then why the sudden attachment to Moiso? The bottom line is, if
> anyone would know whether Moiso can eventually produce in this
environment, it
> would be Wallace & Obie. Trading him clearly indicated their conclusion,
> Wallace's polite parting statements notwithstanding. The stuff that's come
out
> about Moiso's uncoachability and attitude doesn't surprise me in the
least - it
> makes sense, because it explains his behavior and performance on the
court, as
> well as why Obie wouldn't play him even when the outcome of the games
didn't
> matter. You don't do that to a kid who's eager to learn and work hard to
> harness his raw talent.
>
> - --- You wrote:
> 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.
> - --- end of quote ---
>
> Your reasoning here is interesting, to say the least. It goes like this:
> They were able to trade Moiso for something positive ::: hence he had
value :::
> hence he might've had more value than what they got for him
> I see absolutely no logical (in the formal sense) reason  one could reach
this
> conclusion. The only reason to say this would be if you strongly believe
that
> Wallace & Co. are so incompetent that every time they do a deal, they get
> shafted.
>
> Is there any reason to believe that, if they included a pick (presumably
round
> #1) with Moiso, they could've shipped Kenny or Williams off? I doubt it.
But
> let's say they could. Then you either have to trade with a team under the
cap,
> or take similar salary back. The first scenario is basically selling your
> future for a salary dump, which you "abhor"*. The second scenario would
only
> make sense if we got a good player back, preferably one that fills a need.
Now,
> would you trade a good player for Moiso + Kenny or Williams and a pick? I
> suppose it's a matter of how good the player is and what the pick is, but
I
> really doubt that Moiso + the pick outweigh a contract like Kenny's enough
to
> get someone decent.
>
> *you did say "unless there's a plan". But what plans can you really make?
To
> sign a premium free agent next summer? But how do you know that you'll be
able
> to sign him (cf. Chicago, Detroit)? Moreover, the old team always has the
> advantage in signing him under the new CBA (cf. Webber, Carter). So have
you
> really accomplished if you can't sign that FA?
>
> Kestas