No Subject

[bird <birdwl@earthlink.net>]

> From: Alexander Wang <awang@MIT.EDU>
>
> I agree. I even suggested something like this last week, I think. As 
> Kestas
> stated very well, if this is possible (and the Celtics believe that it
> would be an upgrade), I'd hope they would pursue it. But just because we
> haven't seen it in the rumor pages doesn't mean we have something to be
> angry or frustrated about. My guess is that it's just not a realistic
> scenario.

Once again, Alex Wang is like a fresh breeze of reason through this List.  
This is an excellent point, I think.  While Nazr-to-Beantown _seems_ like 
a natural (Walker being a good friend, the Obie angle, etc) how many of 
these kinds of things _don't pan out in the NBA?  More often than not, to 
be sure.  I actually harbor a distant hope that Nazr might be our starting 
center, but this is an irrational hope based on his over-average 
performance at the end of last year.  Could he be the next Travis Knight 
or Ike Austin?  Easily.  Some guy getting above-average money for being 
tall and having a good run.  Could he be a productive player on a playoff 
team?  Sure, I could see that, too.  I guess I've got to have just a 
little faith in Wallace/Obie/Papile, or else I'd have a coronary.  After 
the draft, I figured that at least they seemed to get the guys they wanted,
  unlike Pitino who would bring in guys who didn't seem to fit much with 
his program (Fortson, V, et al.).  My god, what I wouldn't give to read 
that 93-page essay Wallace wrote!

> If Haywood has a better NBA career than
> Brown (or Johnson) then I'll credit you for wanting him before the draft
> and curse Wallace's poor evaluation skills. But my point is that you
> shouldn't take him if you don't believe that'll be the case, just to fill
> that need.

I confess that I secretly wanted the C's to take a Loren Woods or a 
Haywood, but that was predicated on Wallace, et al. finding them worthy -- 
clearly not the case.  I sympathize with those who would like a real, 
quality big man -- so would I -- but maybe, just maybe, one of our 
up-and-coming talents will garner just such a player, or maybe Blount or 
Battie (or even V) will improve to starter quality.  OK, the former is 
more likely then the latter, but I'm OK with that.

> You seem to be saying, we need to make a move just to keep up with the
> neighbors. Well, we should do what we can to improve, but let's not reach.
> Let's not make a trade that's bad in the long term just because we're
> impatient.

Amen, brother.  Maybe the "big move" comes next year or the year after 
(hey, I don't even want to mention Duncan in two years -- but I guess I 
just did).  I'm eagerly awaiting seeing how the rooks perform and fit in 
into the plan (for the first time in many moon an actual plan that is 
being stuck to).  I have fairly high hopes that they will either fit very 
well into the plan (seems somewhat unlikely) or gain us those players who 
will really benefit the team.  I noticed that we have few lame contracts 
left -- and they are up relatively soon.  This may give us the latitude to 
explore those types of trades/signings that may radically effect the team 
for the better.

> So maybe we make a run at Nazr, or not. Let's see where he ends up and for
> how much money, and how he plays next year, and then we can complain with
> the benefit of hindsight instead of venting blindly with essentially no
> information except speculation about the lack of a visit to Boston. Other
> than that, I don't see what kind of opportunities we have to improve right
> now. If one presents itself, believe me, I'm all for it. I'm not sold on
> the Battie/Vitaly/Blount combo either.

Precisely.  I included this in my reply only because, for the life of me, 
I could not say it better than this.

> I think what I'm advocating for the Celtics is pretty simple: make the
> moves that improve your team the most in the long term (within budget
> constraints given by the owner). The execution is the real trick, here. If
> the Celtics feel that signing and trading for Nazr is possible and 
> improves
> the team in the long term, they should do it of course. I just don't think
> Wallace has actually been too lazy or scared to look into that move; it's
> either not feasible or he doesn't believe it'll improve the team in the
> long run. We just don't know enough about which one is the case to
> criticize our management. Maybe they could have had him but didn't want 
> him
> and he ends up being excellent; then I'll freely join in moaning about
> their incompetence. Or maybe there was just no way they could get him.
> Until we have a bit more info, any criticism is premature.

Again, I apologize for the longish quote, but this is it in a nutshell.  
Too often, we Listers critique before the fact.  Who knows how this will 
turn out?  I like the draftees (and this from a guy who really wanted to C'
s management grab some 7-footer they thought was worthy) and the apparent 
talent they bring.  Maybe the C's are even looking to supplement in a 
sign-and-trade, but my guess is they actually do stand pat and see how the 
players (presumably) improve (or develop in the case of rookies) in order 
to see how they might furhter benefit the team.

> But if they don't exist right now -- and my guess is they don't -- then
> let's enjoy watching the team shoot for the playoffs, hope that both the
> new talent and old talent develops well, and wait for realistic trades for
> quality players later, and free agent acquisitions when the luxury tax is
> not so threatening.

Given the restrictions placed on the team by the owner, this would seem to 
me to be the most reasonable and realistic approach.

Regards,

(The Celtic "Tird",
  Celticus "tirdius")