Re: trade: now or later?

["Orion" <johnlyell@hotmail.com>]

I think we do need to consider moving Williams and/or Mcleod if possible to
give the time to Johnson & Brown.

Brian Skinner, although having a history of injuries, would be a nice
addition.

We need a low post presence .



----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Murphy" <tfmiii@worldnet.att.net>
To: "Celtic list" <celtics@igtc.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2001 1:34 PM
Subject: trade: now or later?


> 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.