RE: Re: interesting NBA notes

[Alexander Wang <awang@MIT.EDU>]

At 11:07 AM 7/11/01, Berry, Mark  S wrote:
>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.

No. I pointed out shortly afterwards that any exception deal longer than 1 
year would probably put us over the luxury tax. That's because our current 
players have raises built into their contracts each year. That's the reason 
why the Nets and Sonics and other teams are pursuing him. They have enough 
room below the luxury tax threshold. A sign-and-trade would be necessary, 
which means that Atlanta ultimately controls whether we can make a deal, 
and what price we'd have to pay.

>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.

This is solely due to the luxury tax. There are quite a few teams that 
aren't pursuing anyone this offseason, and it's not because they all think 
that adding a free agent couldn't benefit them -- it surely can't hurt. But 
almost nobody wants to pay a luxury tax. Now, we could try to sign someone 
for a one-year deal for some short term help, but unless their agent is 
stupid, they'll know that we'd have to renounce that player next year to 
avoid the luxury tax.

This fact about the luxury tax probably explains a lot of the differences 
in our opinion. If I thought the Celtics were standing pat solely because 
they didn't think the team needed any improvement, I might be a bit annoyed 
too. On the other hand, it's possible that Wallace is thinking more long 
term and wants to avoid any more long-term deals in order to preserve the 
opportunity to get under the cap, to facilitate a big trade or free agent 
signing.

>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."

I think this is an obvious misinterpretation of our draft strategy. They 
wouldn't have passed on Diop if he had been the top player on their board. 
But they had him ranked much lower than several other player that were 
available. The concept of taking the "consensus best player" is absurd. If 
that was the strategy of our GM, I could do it -- just read the latest mock 
drafts and pick based on that. The hope is that Wallace actually has 
superior evaluating skills than you or I, or the mock draft people, or 
teams like Cleveland  -- that he picks McGrady over consensus best player 
Van Horn, for instance, like Isiah Thomas stated he would have done. That's 
what Wallace is paid for. If he would have picked Radmanovic over Diop, or 
Forte over Haywood, then it would be because he projects them to be better 
NBA players over their careers, not because he has a weird aversion to 
centers.

Alex