Re: Would The Celtics Win More Or Less Games If Walker Was Injured?

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

At 12:13 12/10/01 -0400, Way Of The Ray wrote:
>I'm inclined to the opinion that they would win more games
>if Walker were taken out of the equation. I say an increased
>defensive presence at power forward and the frontcourt, letting
>the point guards -- as poverty stricken as they are -- solely
>run the offense, and an increase in scoring efficiency
>would mitigate against Walker's loss.

You've brought up an original thought. We may need to look into delivering 
some food and clothing to our "poverty stricken" point guards. ;-)

But seriously, in an ideal world Boston could trade Antoine with a player 
who gives you 9.0 rebounds and missed a total of 1 game in the past four 82 
game seasons. If we want 9 boards along with much better interior defense 
(some shot blocking would be nice), we might be able to get an older player 
that matches this need (PJ Brown?). Right now, there aren't that many 
players under 30 who fit this description. Go see for yourselves guys.

In this sense, I believe even Toine's critics recognize that trading him 
now means cutting our losses (i.e. getting something less in return), due 
to the size of his contract and the fan-unfriendly "most hated player" 
label stuck on him by Peter May and Tim Hardaway. It is the "less can still 
be more" argument.

On the assumption that we'll get less back statistically in a positional 
trade, I think the threshold issue is whether the Celtics have players on 
the roster who can also replace Toine's point forward (Joe Johnson) and 
scoring ability (Kedrick Brown, maybe Forte), assuming we can replace 
Toine's rebounding and durability via trade.

Based on the exhibition game and common sense, it seems we're at least one 
year (if not several years) from determining whether JJ can replace 
Walker's 5.5 assists and Brown/JJ can replace 23.4 ppg in 38 minutes of 
total PT.

In fact, this seems to be precisely what Chris Wallace means when he talks 
about "stockpiling" talent (or whatever the phrase was). He's going to 
first gather a evidence before he trades for a missing piece of the puzzle 
(interior player or All Star-level pointguard). This is probably timed with 
when Kenny and others come off the cap in two years.

 From ownership/management's perspective, clearly no one (above all the 
highest paid players like Toine and Pierce) will be untouchable when the 
time comes to go for that missing piece. If Joe Johnson and Kedrick Brown 
show signs that they can make Paul Pierce nearly redundant, then Paul will 
be traded for a veteran or high lotto pick rights and the kids will be 
re-signed for big bucks. And if the rookies make Walker's triple doubles 
seem like a big yawn, then say arrivaderci Antoine (but we'll still get 
less in return, compared to the popular Pierce).

Unless he's a true cancer to the team, I would oppose trading Toine until 
1) his trade value somewhat approaches his actual value to the team; and 2) 
we know with some certainty (rather than wishful thinking) that Toine's 
output realistically can be replaced by other kids on our roster (along 
with what we can get for him in return).

Right now, neither condition has been met. A good 2001-02 season from Toine 
and maybe the first condition will be met, or then again maybe not (he's 
"hated" on a national level right now, thanks to a lazy sports media that 
repeats and embelleshes old and distorted news).

Regarding the second condition, you can wish it all you want but Paul 
Pierce is the sort of great player who will never produce triple doubles 
(maybe someday Joe Johnson can). Nor can we expect Paul Pierce to add a big 
share of Walker's 23 ppg to his current scoring average (maybe someday 
Kedrick Brown or someone else can do that). On the boards, no one on 
Boston's roster is good for much more than 6 boards, much less 9. We need 
at minimum a double figure rebounder in return, if Walker is traded.

I really think Walker doubters (or Pierce doubters if there are any) might 
get their wish in several years, but we have to be patient. If the rookies 
are as good as advertised, Boston will have stockpiled too much playing 
time worth of talent at wing forward/guard and too little at other key 
positions. There will be this imbalance, and one of the four (Walker, 
Pierce, Kedrick, Johnson) will have to go. The luxury tax makes this seem 
even more inevitable.

The only thing that would definitely prevent this from happening is if 
Boston were already contending for a championship, in which case ownership 
would pay the luxury tax to keep the whole team together. But if Boston 
does have to trade one of the four to make a run at #17, I'd much rather 
trade from a position of strength and knowledge than from a position of 
weakness.

A clear "position of strength" today would be to trade Paul Pierce, who is 
one of the few stars in the league playing on a sub-500 team whose 
perceived trade value may match his actual worth. Plus we have players that 
have potential at the same position, which is not the case with Walker. But 
I'd be very pissed off if such a trade were to happen, and thankfully I'm 
nearly 100% sure it won't.

>Mr. Toine has shown remarkable durability during his career,
>but almost everyone tastes the injury bug in their NBA existence,
>so we may yet see, if my premise is right.

I don't know what to make of this, Ray. What premise!? I don't get it.

And what's with the "tasting...bugs" metaphor for that matter? I think you 
may have *equated* yourself once again. ;-)

---