Re: Celtics=Playoff's???????

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

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

> Good point on the draft pick only being available in 2003. That usually
goes
> unnoticed, and I've certainly ignored it. And I never said having an extra
> first-rounder was a bad thing-only that a pick in that 25-or-later range
> almost always is a non-factor. But if we're worried about one year of
> Moiso's rookie scale salary (the reason for making the trade), then aren't
> we a little concerned about adding a guaranteed three-year contract for a
> late first-rounder who, odds are, won't contribute much?

The way I understand it, the problem is the luxury tax in the 2002-2003
season.  That season, Pierce's maximum salary kicks in and Kenny is still on
the books.  After that, Kenny's $9m is gone (Walter's $3m, too) with no
major increases and things are a lot less tight.  The following year, Eric
Williams, Randy Brown and their $7.7m are gone.  Of course, 2005-2006 will
be another critical year, because you have potential extensions for Johnson,
K. Brown and Forte (and Antoine, for that matter).  I don't think it makes
too much sense to look that far down the road, though, because, as Joe
pointed out, if those guys are maximum contract players, there will have to
be some trades.  You can't pay 4 wing players 25% of the salary cap each.
The only current roster players not signed through next year are Mark
Blount, Roshown McLeod and Walter McCarty.  What the team seems to be trying
to do is work out a way to pay Blount (or another center) without having to
pay luxury tax in 2003.

The bottom line for me is that the team is acting like they understand that
it is crucial not to take on long term, unproductive contracts.  The Kenny
Anderson mistake was at least understandable.  He is talented, and there was
no way of knowing that the players were going to take such a beating in the
CBA, making his salary twice as outrageous.  Eric Williams was understood to
be a cap liability when he was acquired, and it was for 5 years.  Dumb and
dumber.

The question is, will the stars that this team has be good enough to succeed
by adding role players around them?  If so, I think they've got enough
salary coming off the books with very little loss of production to shore up
their big men first and then the point guards, when Anderson and Brown are
done.  But that big man help is a full two seasons away.  Right now we're in
the position of hoping Mark Blount improves and that they can keep him next
season, if he does.

It would be nice for us fans if Gaston said, "You know what?  We screwed up
and we're going to have to bite the bullet and pay the luxury tax for one
year, but that's it."  But I don't think he wants to set that precedent.
And I don't have a problem with that.  Not yet anyway.  I would have a
problem if they got close and let the luxury tax keep them from adding the
final pieces they need to truly contend.  I'd have a big problem with that.
Right now we have to find out how good these stars are.  If they're good but
not good enough, major trades will have to be made and all of these
calculations will go right out the window.

Jim