RE: Trying to make up my mind...

["Shawn Niles" <shizzjr@hotmail.com>]

It does not matter how much passion Pitino had or how much he wanted to win. 
What matters is wheather or not he could do it. And he couldn't. The only 
reason the team won 15 games the year before Pitino was because they were 
instructed to lose games in order to achieve the highest pick in the draft. 
If M.L. was not coaching the team to lose, they would have been a 30 win 
team. So the jump from 15 to 36 is overrated anyways. Pitino is the biggest 
scam artist to ever come into this town. He scammed everyone into thinking 
that he knew what he was doing, when in reality he never had a clue. The 
reason the team quit on him is not because they didn't want to work. It is 
because they finally realized that under Pitino all the hard work in the 
world was never going to translate into a winning team. They realized what 
all of us did... that little Ricky was clueless.


>From: "Berry, Mark  S" <berrym@BATTELLE.ORG>
>To: "'j.hironaka'" <j.hironaka@unesco.org>,   "Berry, Mark  S"  
><berrym@BATTELLE.ORG>, celtics@igtc.com
>Subject: RE: Trying to make up my mind...
>Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 07:55:14 -0400
>
>Very fair points, Joe, including the ones on Pitino. It's not that I have a
>special affinity for Pitino really, just that he's the same guy who turned 
>a
>16-win team into an overachieving, playoff contending team in one season (I
>know the clichi that that's supposed to be easy, but look at the truly
>terrible teams in the league and see how many make that kind of jump 
>without
>a significant player acquisition-and remember only in the Pierce draft did
>Pitino ever have a really good draft class to improve with). People say the
>system doesn't work, but it worked that season. I think things unraveled 
>the
>next season, coming off the lockout, when the Celtics' young players 
>clearly
>weren't prepared to play. The team that overachieved the year before
>underachieved that season, and I have a hard time laying the blame all on
>Pitino. Then you have the chemistry problems with Walker-Mercer-Pierce and
>the disastrous Mercer-Fortson trade (regardless of how you feel about
>Fortson, his injury basically meant the Celts gave Mercer away)... it all
>combined to put this cloud of negativity around the team and Pitino got
>caught up in it and the players smelled the blood in the water. Pitino's
>first team completely bought into what he was doing. Remember how few games
>that team lost to inferior opponents? They really were a pleasure to watch
>and played hard all the time. Maybe you're right and the players decided 
>the
>system simply couldn't work and did us all a favor by hastening Pitino's
>departure. I think it's just as likely, however, that they saw Pitino in
>trouble and decided that was the way to get rid of a guy who worked them
>harder than they had ever been worked before. Because say what you want
>about Pitino, he was more driven to bring a championship to Boston than any
>of his players have proven to be, and for that he has my respect. Of 
>course,
>he did a lousy job of it, and needed to go, but it doesn't change his
>passion for the team.
>
>Your summary of my main points is dead-on, and thanks.
>
>Mark
>
>  -----Original Message-----
>From: 	j.hironaka [mailto:j.hironaka@unesco.org]
>Sent:	Wednesday, August 08, 2001 7:36 AM
>To:	Berry, Mark  S; celtics@igtc.com
>Subject:	Re: Trying to make up my mind...
>
>To start with, Mark B. is by no means Mr Negativity Guy on this
>list.  Moreover, I think his arguments are being misrepresented.  From what
>I've read, it usually boils down to something like this:
>
>1) fans should never passively accept a trade made just to save money and
>avoid taxes, if there is evidence the Moiso trade was motivated by little
>else. I personally don't believe this was the case, but I still see it as a
>valid general observation to make.
>
>2) if you are only going to only fiddle and diddle with the roster, then
>trade with an aim to improve around the edges because we have a chance to
>make the playoffs this year. Making the playoffs is very important to team
>develoment and the development of our best players, for reasons I
>personally regard as self-evident.
>
>3) if you are willing to explore more than the fiddle and diddle, don't set
>limits. No player should be off limits if the target acquisition is worth
>it. That's obvious so I don't see where the big controversy is.
>
>On the last point I fully agree. What's the downside of  taking the trouble
>to work out Kwame Brown and Eddie Griffin before the draft? (Houston got
>Eddie Griffin for next to nothing on paper) Or even to workout the top FA
>rebounders this summer like Mark Jackson, Nazr Mohammed, Jerome Williams
>this summer? (I don't think Battie's feelings will be too hurt) Or
>negotiate Jason Kidd's destination with Phoenix? You aren't compelled to
>make a drastic move on any of them, but you have an obligation to at least
>gather maximum information.
>
>If what they uncover outweighs Wallace's master FA plan in 2003, then make
>your move. If not, then don't. We can wait until 2003. There's no way
>Kedrick and JJ are signing for 50% of the salary cap without something else
>dramatic happening involving Toine/Pierce or with Kenny's money (I'm
>assuming the best of course, with regard to Kedrick and JJ).
>
>I'm not saying that Chris Wallace isn't exploring things and has stayed
>fully in the loop throughout the Eddie Griffin, Jason Kidd and other
>trades. But assuming he has, that doesn't make such observations on this
>list any less worthwhile or valid to make.
>
>At 13:26 07/08/01 -0400, Berry, Mark  S wrote:
> >I can see both sides of it, but I refuse to be blind to the negative 
>about
> >this team anymore. I used to be, but reality hit hard in a tank job at 
>home
> >against the Sixers last year.
>
>Mark, a lot of teams "tanked" against the Sixers defense last season. If
>there was a clear pattern of tanking by our two stars, I'd have highlighted
>it to demonstrate that our players were in fact acting rationally (and thus
>doing fans a favor). I'd be pleased to demonstrate this trend.
>
>But there was no trend  (at least in terms of dropoffs in statistical
>production and efficiency at the tail end of the Pitino regime). Sure you
>have regular season blowouts where one team "quits"...these things always
>snowball.
>
>What exactly about the Pitino system was working? Whicheverplayer finally
>"quit" on him certainly did the greater organization a big favor cutting
>off Pitino's own planned exit by several months. Was it disrespectful or
>disloyal to not let Pitino jump ship on his own terms, 10 million or so
>richer? Like I said, I'd love to identify the quitter on our team, if there
>in fact was one. You have a particular sympathy/connection with Pitino
>which is often evident and is fine, but you can't complain about the
>players for not behaving more like lemmings and win much sympathy. What was
>working under the Pitino system?
>
>Had he stayed, we wouldn't be talking about building on a .500 team against
>a playoff-calibre schedule. Is that an inaccurate or distorted observation?
>Right now we might even be pathetically mulling over losing stars to free
>agency and rebuilding around a Steven Hunter, Tyson Chandler or some other
>headless chicken type to challenge Batbrain and Mo'-lazy.
>
>Red Auerbach didn't believe he could transfer coaching intelligence and
>motivational skills onto blank slate athletes. That would have been both
>foolhardy and self-delusional. He went and got players who were already
>intelligent and motivated, and then basically treated them like men.
>
>***


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