trade: now or later?

["Thomas Murphy" <tfmiii@worldnet.att.net>]

A very cogent posting, Joe. I have to agree with what you say. I think it is
important for the Cs to realize that the key right now is improving the
value and worth of their current players. Stability along with some proper
coaching (like O'B did in the waning moments of Charlotte - pulling Twon
briefly to reinforce his role on the team) is the recipe. You are not going
to be able to trade for the top-flight rebounding/defending center you need
for a championship right now. We are going to have to be patient and improve
our other assets and make this team attractive to the kind of player who
*could* put us over the top in a few years. This is not unlike what Philly
did - positioned themselves where the addition of a top-notch center could
put them into serious contention. Like Philly with Mutombo, we are going to
have to wait for a center who wants to flee a rebuilding situation and
*then* make our offer. Whether that offer includes Twon, Pierce or whoever
will depend on how things pan out. Who knows what the situation will be in
SA or Miami in a few years, just to name two teams with highly desirable
centers. In all likelihood *if* we are going to climb back to the top of the
heap it will be with someone at center/pf who is already playing in the
league with some other team - but only after we put ourselves in position to
make such a deal possible through player development.

------------------
> Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 21:10:27 +0200
> From: "j.hironaka" <j.hironaka@unesco.org>
> Subject: Re: Would The Celtics Win More Or Less Games If Walker Was
Injured?
>
> 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.