RE: Re: interesting NBA notes

["Berry, Mark S" <berrym@BATTELLE.ORG>]

OK, I'm going to make one last point about this.

You're presenting it as an either-or... It's not. The whole point is the
Celtics probably could add Nazr Mohammed, an upgrade at a critical position
of need, without sacrificing any key parts of the future. It's not going to
take Pierce, Walker, Kedrick Brown, Joe Johnson or Joe Forte to get
Mohammed. As Joe H. pointed out, the Celtics could even sign the guy for the
exception without a sign-and-trade and still not be in luxury tax territory.
You say just because we don't hear about the Celtics efforts doesn't mean
they aren't being made... But Wallace and O'Brien both have said directly
that they don't plan to sign anyone. I understand they can't say "Our
centers stink and we're looking at options..." or "We're going to try to
sign Nazr Mohammed..." (although other teams have no problem discussing free
agents in generalities) But they have come right out and said they won't
sign anyone. Nazr hasn't been to Boston for a visit-that much is a fact-and
he wants to make a decision soon.

You say we shouldn't try to keep up with the neighbors... Isn't that exactly
what we're supposed to do? Isn't the point to try to win, to make the
playoffs, to win a championship? That means being better than anyone else.
At what point do we decide that we need to be better than the other lottery
teams in the East? How long do you wait? Again, I'm not talking about
breaking up the core of this team. I'm talking about picking up a guy that
isn't going to cost much more than salary or a backup center. The Pistons,
the Nets, the Sonics... plenty of teams see Nazr as an affordable upgrade.
Why not the Celtics?

You all know my concerns about Jim O'Brien. He took his mad-bomber 3-point
strategy to the University of Dayton and ran that program so far into the
ground the fans could hear Chinese. I'm just concerned that he's a guy who
puts no value on big men. We're collecting swingmen and shooters-which is
fine, because they're talented and will have value-but we have shown no
interest at all in big men.

You bring up Haywood. I don't think we should have drafted him at 10 or 11,
but while the Celtics were holding their breath hoping the Cavs wouldn't
take Forte at 20, I was hoping they wouldn't take Haywood. As it turns out,
we would have taken Forte/Tony Parker anyway. The Celtics were praying
DeSagna Diop was taken before their early picks because they didn't want him
to be the best player on the board. They would have passed on him-even
though he was the consensus best player available. That's my concern. I
always say take the best player available. My concern is that a couple of
times in the draft, the situation almost dictated that the best player
available was a center (Diop at 10 or Haywood at 21) and in post-draft
conversations, Wallace and O'Brien have revealed that neither of those
players would have been taken by the Celtics. It's almost as if they say
"take the best player available... unless that player is a center." 

But like I said in an earlier post, it's a moot point. The Celtics aren't
interested in Nazr. We'll see this season how that Boston front line holds
up.

Mark

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Alexander Wang [mailto:awang@MIT.EDU] 
Sent:	Tuesday, July 10, 2001 5:58 PM
To:	Berry, Mark  S; Berry, Mark  S; 'celtics@igtc.com'
Subject:	RE: Re: interesting NBA notes

At 04:53 PM 7/10/01, Berry, Mark  S wrote:
>Let's look at a possible scenario:
>Nazr tells the Hawks he isn't going to return and would like to sign with
>Boston for something around the mid-level exception figure. The Hawks
>believe they are a playoff contender and need a backup center to replace
>Nazr. So the teams work out a sign-and-trade involving Vitaly, who takes
>over Nazr's role as backup center in Atlanta. Granted, Atlanta downgrades
in
>terms of talent, but they're getting something when Nazr could walk and
>leave them with nothing. The Celtics do the sign-and-trade because they
want
>to get Nazr without adding significant salary. Two years from now, maybe
>Nazr and Paul Pierce get you Tim Duncan or Eddy Curry or Kwame Brown or
some
>other stud center who is on the market. But for those two years, the
Celtics
>have a better option at center than Vitaly/Battie/Blount.

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. The Hawks probably know that we are too close to the luxury tax 
and couldn't possibly sign Nazr to the exception (he'd want a multiyear 
deal, surely). Nazr wouldn't have any leverage to force a trade here. And 
who knows, Boston might not even be his first choice. Maybe he'd like to 
play for a team that's even worse than us inside (New Jersey? Seattle?) at 
the center position, where he's guaranteed 35 minutes per game even if he 
doesn't play as well as he did last year.

On the other hand, maybe he threatens to go somewhere else instead, and 
then when they are resigned to losing him, we jump in with Vitaly being the 
best offer. It's not impossible. But let's see what happens before we vent.

>As for the comment about not taking a Haywood type because it takes two
>years to pan out... that's the kind of thinking that keeps you from landing
>a Jermaine O'Neal. If you can draft a center at No. 20 who in two years is
a
>legit NBA starter, you've absolutely struck gold.

Well, that wasn't my point. We couldn't draft Haywood anyway because he was 
taken before our pick at 21.  I was advocating against taking him at #11 
when we had other guys ahead of him for talent reasons. My point is that 
you don't draft for need, especially when the guy is two years away from 
giving you anything anyway and you'll be able to fill that need by a trade 
by then, using the guy you drafted for quality instead. I'm advocating 
patience; I don't care if a draft pick takes four years to develop, as long 
as he improves the team eventually. 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 just think we're close to that point when waiting for our three draft
>picks to improve and taking our chance with next year's lottery have ceased
>to be the best methods for improving this team. To take a real leap
>forward-like Toronto did-we need to add some bulk up front to complement
the
>flash we've put together on the perimeter. Look at the rest of the
>East-Atlanta has passed the Celtics; Washington will if Jordan comes back;
>Detroit may have passed the Celts with Rodney White, Cliff Robinson and
>maybe Nazr Mohammed; New Jersey has made a huge improvement with Jason
Kidd.
>The Celts did great in the draft, but it's the other areas where teams are
>passing the Celts by.

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. Speaking of Jermaine O'Neal, Portland probably regrets trading 
him because they needed to win now. We're nowhere near as close as Portland 
was. Now they're talking about dismantling the team; a 22 year old center 
sure would be a nice start.

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.

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.

What I'm advocating against is this:
1. Stressing out about the lack of rumors about trades that may not even be 
possible.
2. Drafting for need over talent.
3. Trading for the short term over the long term.

When you talk about drafting Haywood to fill our center spot, or about 
needing to make a move now to stay ahead of our competitors, that strikes 
me as the type of short-term focus that will ultimately hurt the Celtics -- 
which was Pitino's greatest fault as a GM. He overpaid for mediocre players 
and pulled the trigger on bad trades because he was desperate to fill needs 
as fast as possible. If we can truly improve by making a trade, let's do 
it, and I hope that Wallace can find opportunities like that at some point. 
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.

Alex