Re: Palacio and Griffin

[bird <birdwl@earthlink.net>]

> From: "Jim Meninno" <jam@london.com>
>
> I'd have expected Milt to get maybe $1-2m per
> year, max.  No matter what the length of the contract was.  Bottom line is
> he's got very little experience, and inexperienced point guards without
> overwhelming talent do not usually command large salaries.

Hi Jim.  Well, you present a convincing argument, I think.  I will admit 
that the Palacio contract's amount is large -- larger than I expected it 
would be.  I just don't think one can discount the importance of the small 
length.  As long as the C's weren't going to go after any other free 
agents, the amount matters less (in comparison).  However, your point 
about spending the funds on Stith instead is a good one.  I think the 
answer might be in not only Palacio's position, but also in how he plays 
the game: the C's have little use for a traditional point guard it seems, 
they need someone to push the ball up the court, score off double-teams, 
penetrate the lane, dish to the half-court offense initiator (Walker, I 
guess), and provide tough D.  Milt hasn't done _all_ these things, but I 
think C's management is betting that they can mold him into the point that 
they desire, and, if not, then let him go at the end of the two years.  In 
that sense, his inexperience turns from a liability to a benefit.

I agree, this sounds strange, but management seems to have a plan -- a 
strange one in many ways, to be sure, or at least non-traditional.  
Perhaps they feel Palacio is, or will be, the quintessential point guard 
for their style.  It's not the style _I_ would choose (nothing beats a 
strong, big team for my money), but they, at least, seem to be following 
it through, with picks and signings.  They seem to want athletic, quick 
perimeter players who can shoot the long ball and run the floor.

> $3-4m seems much more appropriate for him [Bryant Stith], although as I
> said, I'd rather the Celtics opted for Griffin instead, for less money.

Yes, it does seem more appropriate, and yes, I guess I would have 
preferred Griffin over Stith, all things considered.  Maybe they want 
someone around who can help teach the rooks how to be effective NBA 
swingmen?  (I agree that Griffin could do this as well, maybe better, and 
for cheaper, probably).

> I also don't see why giving Stith that contract
> causes problems with the luxury tax, but giving it to Milt doesn't.
> Something doesn't add up, and we'll have to wait and see the details when
> it's official.

Yeah, this is where I'm lost, as well.  I'm no cap expert, but this either 
has the makings of some subtle benefit to the team of which I am not aware,
  or a miscalculation.  Why give Palacio 3-4mil a year when you could give 
him 1-2mil, in other words, right?  If not because of the lack of cap 
flexibility anyway (in other words, the team might as well have given the 
money to him) or because they really think Palacio either will have a 
breakout year, or fits in so well with the other players, then I really 
don't know.  Maybe we will find out the reasons.  Bottom line, for me, the 
length is the crucial criterion about this contract, but it doesn't stop 
me from wondering about why the dollar amount -- maybe they _were_ bidding 
against another team, maybe not.  I guess time will tell about whether 
this was a good move or not.

Off to watch the Shaw league game.  Though Milt _was_ probably gunning 
with the blessing of the coaching staff (Obie?  Allowing his players to 
pull the trigger?  Noooooo...) I'd like to see Milt spread the wealth 
around a bit this game so I can see what the rooks are all about (inasmuch 
as one can do in one summer game), though, as someone mentioned, summer's 
the time to practice that shooting in a competitive situation.

Regards,

Bill

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