RE: Re: interesting NBA notes

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

A few things... Mohammed isn't a weight problem or lazy or anything like Ike
Austin. He is a fit hard-worker who was behind better players in Philly. He
wouldn't be in Boston. I'm not one of those clamoring for someone who can
bang with Shaq, but I'd love someone who could bang with Antonio Davis,
Marcus Camby, Alonzo Mourning, Theo Ratliff and Jermaine O'Neal.

But let's forget Mohammed for a second, and look at philosophies.
Specifically, let's look at the Sixers. They've traded away Jerry
Stackhouse, Larry Hughes, Tim Thomas, Theo Ratliff, Toni Kukoc, Nazr
Mohammed... and gotten back players like Tyrone Hill (for Thomas), Kukoc
(for Hughes), Ratliff and McKie (for Stackhouse) and Mutombo (for Kukoc,
Ratliff and Mohammed). They've traded away some bright futures in
Stackhouse, Hughes, Thomas, Ratliff and Mohammed, but would they take any of
those deals back? No way, even though you could argue that they've traded
away more talent than they've gotten back.

My point is, the future is great and very important, but we shouldn't sell
ourselves short. The Sixers were where the Celtics were and might still be
on that level if they had kept all those "potential" guys. But they
continually reshaped the roster in order to advance the team. Five years
from now, would they like to have Hughes, Thomas, Stackhouse and Ratliff?
Absolutely, but the tradeoff was a three of four-year window when they have
to be considered legitimate contenders to reach the Finals.

Other teams do the same thing. Dallas saw an opportunity and traded Courtney
Alexander for overpaid Juwan Howard, because they believed they needed a
power forward and low-post scorer to be a playoff threat. Portland did it
successfully in dealing Kelvin Cato and others for Scottie Pippen and Rider
for Steve Smith, and they failed in trying the same thing in trading
Jermaine O'Neal for Dale Davis and Brian Grant for Shawn Kemp.

Eventually you have to decide to go for it. The Celtics won't make the
playoffs if they get killed on the boards night-in and night-out, which will
happen without some changes. That will be a sixth straight year of no
postseason for Antoine and a fourth straight for Pierce. You'd be hard
pressed to find two players with their numbers who have played on the same
team and gone longer without a sniff of the postseason. They need some help
up front. Again, I'm not advocating trading Pierce or Walker or the draft
picks (their value is as low as it will be) or any future picks (unless
they're protected). I'm saying be aggressive around the edges and get some
help in here up front now. Try to make a move this year, then continue that
Philly-like roster shaping over the next couple of years to take the next
step.

Mark 


 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Alexander Wang [mailto:awang@MIT.EDU] 
Sent:	Wednesday, July 11, 2001 2:21 PM
To:	Berry, Mark  S; 'celtics@igtc.com'
Subject:	RE: Re: interesting NBA notes

The thing that worries me the most is your obvious frustration about this 
topic that is based on a big string of ifs:
   1. if Mohammed is better than our current centers,
   2. if he would prefer to play in Boston,
   3. if Atlanta would be willing to send him to us in a sign-and-trade not 
involving a key piece or a draft pick,
   4. and if Wallace nonetheless has failed to pursue Mohammed,
THEN I think you have a case.

This whole string of ifs is based on some iffy evidence:
   1. Mohammed had a stretch of 20+ games where he put up good stats for a 
pathetic team. Ike Austin did similar things in half season and seems to 
have the same, overweight but motivated in a contract year situation -- 
except he did it for a much better team.
   2. Mohammed and Walker are good friends. He could possibly get starter 
minutes here.
   3. Atlanta actually wants to take back an inferior center than Mohammed 
in a sign-and-trade, rather than replacing him by pursuing another free 
agent. And Mohammed somehow forces the trade, using leverage by threatening 
to leave for a third team. (This is how someone like Webber would force his 
way to New York).
   4. Mohammed hasn't visited Boston. But maybe he already knows plenty 
about Jim O'Brien, who used to be his coach. Maybe Antoine's told him
enough.

Any number of things could mean that your golden opportunity is actually 
completely impossible.

I agree with your fundamental point, which is that we should explore all 
opportunities to improve the team. If we end up giving Stith a multi-year 
deal at the exception level or above, for instance, then I'll question 
whether we shouldn't have pursued an exception player instead. I just think 
this whole Mohammed frustration isn't based on anything solid. I'm not 
saying shut down the list, I'm saying that we can discuss something that's 
a little closer to reality. We have heard concrete news about certain moves 
that weren't made, like a pick for Croshere for instance.

I agree that we need an upgrade inside. To contend, we're going to need a 
guy who can both defend tough interior players and rebound (though I think 
that "being able to bang with Shaq" shouldn't be the ultimate criterion). 
If Diop or Haywood turns out to be starter quality players that can do 
that, then clearly Wallace made evaluation mistakes (though not necessarily 
execution mistakes).

But right now we're a month into the "Wallace era" if you believe the 
stories about Pitino overruling Wallace on key decisions. He seems to be 
focusing on adding talent and not immediately desperate to improve our weak 
center and point guard positions. If opportunities arise to improve without 
hurting the long term, I hope he jumps on them. But my hope is that he 
doesn't look at the void at center and say "We can't win this year with 
these centers" and start trading away future first round picks, for 
instance. Like I said, if Mohammed is better (we'll see) and available (we 
don't know), then we can criticize Wallace, but for now, you're jumping the 
gun.

Alex

At 01:02 PM 7/11/01, Berry, Mark  S wrote:
>Maybe, maybe not. I happen to think you're seeing the Celtics' strategy in
>the best possible light. But I would counter by saying all of their efforts
>this offseason seem to be aimed at addressing a very short-term need. That
>is, they want someone better than Stith, Eric Williams or Walter McCarty
>taking the jumpers after Pierce and Walker are double-teamed. They drafted
>guys who can get on the floor right away in that role and be an improvement
>in that limited role. But that just seems like plugging the smallest hole
in
>the dike because that's the one that fits your finger. I'll say it again...
>I have no problem with the draft picks. My problem is with their utter
>disinterest in addressing this team's most glaring need. I'm all for
>long-term plans, but there are plenty of ways to make short-term
>improvements that advance a long-term plan. Like Joe said, at some point
you
>have to win, or guys are going to start to believe the grass is greener on
a
>playoff team.
>
>The Celtics don't want to pay a luxury tax. Fine. But if you're going to do
>a sign-and-trade, you first have to convince the guy to come to Boston. The
>Celtics never made that effort. It's like the Knicks going after Webber or
>the Sixers going after Antonio Davis. They're making their pitches first,
>then worrying about piecing together the sign-and-trade later.
>
>As for Wallace or O'Brien having a weird aversion to centers... that's not
>what I said. I'm just saying they seem to lack an appreciation for the
>bangers and space-eaters in the NBA. Look around at the good teams and look
>around at the bad teams. There aren't any consistent formulas for being one
>or the other, but the one thing you will notice is that the good teams have
>at least one legitimate banger/big body at PF or C. Not just a Shaq,
Duncan,
>Webber or Mutombo either. I'm talking about Antonio Davis, Brian Grant,
Dale
>Davis, P.J. Brown, Tyrone Hill, Horace Grant, Marcus Camby, Theo Ratliff,
>Kurt Thomas, Charles Oakley, Anthony Mason... Are there exceptions? Maybe a
>few, but none with worse big men than Vitaly, Battie and Blount. I'm not
>even counting Walker, because he's a power forward in name only.
>
>Of course, you can argue that we just have to trust Wallace and be patient
>and everything will work out. Fine. Let's shut down the list until October.
>Personally, I think the non-moves are just as relevant as the moves the
team
>does make. I happen to think they're missing a golden opportunity to
improve
>at a crucial position of need. Time may prove me wrong.
>
>Mark