Re: BSG Says Walker Out Of Control

[Hironaka <j.hironaka@unesco.org>]

Alexander Wang wrote:

> Dallas didn't get Nash in the trade involving Kidd. The Nash trade was a
> more recent one that principally involved Dallas' first round draft pick,
> which Pheonix ended up using to draft Shawn Marion.
>
> I think the Dallas analogy is an interesting one. As well as they are
> playing right now, I don't believe that the core of Nash, Finley, and
> Nowitzki is really a championship contender on a regular team. I mean, it's
> possible that Dallas may end up being a contender in the future, but I
> think that is going to be by the "Portland method" of stocking up with
> almost-star players by basically abusing Mark Cuban's financial edge. Take
> that away and I think you get a team that looks more like Milwaukee --
> dangerous but ultimately not dominating enough. And assuming the Celtics
> don't get bought by a nutty billionaire, that could be what Boston ends up
> looking like when built around Walker: a dangerous but not dominating team,
> because Walker is ultimately a flawed potential superstar. On the other
> hand, the Sixers have built a dominating team around their own flawed
> superstar. The question is whether Walker can ever be at that level. And if
> he can't, what do you do? Are you satisfied with being stuck with a good
> but not great team? Or do you risk shuffling the pieces?
>
> Alex

Luckily we are in a position to have some lottery picks, and that is (or can
potentially be) a big difference separating Boston's future with that of
Milwaukee and Dallas. They are better teams, and Dallas may even have a better
pair of young stars, but we at least are one ping pong ball away from the next
franchise center to follow Russell, Cowens and Parish. Dallas and Milwaukee
have no such options other than trades.

Denver is 7.5 games out of the playoffs out West and a sure (protected) lottery
pick. The Celts for that matter are 9 games below .500 as a result of this
painful 2-7 skid.

Given this situation, the fact that we have two very valuable ballplayers to
potentially build around is far preferable to having a team filled with
competitive, mediocre talent: as had been the case since the end of the Big
Three + Reggie Lewis era. It goes without saying that most of us would much
prefer zero points from three starters in a very tight game against Milwaukee
any day over a return to having competent but flawed starters at every position
(Dino, Fox, Wesley, Dee and so on).

If we are to trade Antoine,  I'd only do it for a single player of equal talent
and potential (in other words a highly unlikely scenario), not two good players
one of whom could be a starter. For instance, say a player like Lamar Odom if
his failed drug test isn't something serious. We could reuinite him with his
old mentor Ernie DiGregorio, who is out of work. Not that this deal would ever
work, but you know what I mean.

As for concerns expressed that Walker is already so spoiled by laissez-faire
coaching that he might be past redemption as a "team player", I'd again point
to the Jamal Mashburn, Jim Jackson and Jason Kidd era in Dallas. If Walker is
bad now, then Mashburn was a total basketcase then. Look at him now and it's
hard to exaggerate how productive he is as a player. Give Antoine the same Paul
Silas, or, yikes, Pat Riley treatment and he'll get with the program to win
games, guaranteed, once he enters into his mid-twenties and starts to see the
other side of the tunnel.

-------