Re: the future of the center spot

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

Mark, you make some cogent points that deserve exploration. Given how you
end you post, I'm not sure how far apart we really are (i.e., whether your
points are meant merely as caveats or as fundamental critiques). Rather than
try and figure that out I'll just address your points as you made them.

I agree, teams never trade a big man unless they are forced into it by
circumstances. When they sign and trade such a player, they look to obtain
something in return that approximates an NBA big man. But I think you
overestimate the quality of the big men that return in such trades. Even
given the state of our center core now, I would hesitate to take on Matt
Geiger. Certainly if things work out that we are able to wangle a trade
similar to Miami's heist of Mourning we should expect to part with whoever
is deemed the best of our current center rotation and in so doing I don't
think that such a trade would be out of line with past trades of center
studs. Sure our guys don't look like much now - but even now Vitaly has some
value around the league (amazing as it sounds). The centers will have more
value in the future IF (literally a big if) the team starts to turn things
around. Think of Scot Pollard - what value would he have if he played for
the GS Warriors rather than the Kings? We can increase the value of our own
players if we demonstrate that they can be valuable parts of a successful
team. Now, no one is EVER going to trade Mourning for Vitaly, but V could be
part of a deal to obtain Mourning or some other stud in conjunction with
other players in a manner just like Geiger - of limited value but still a
post presence.

Other than Russell (who I think was obtained in part by trading a future
Hall of Famer) I don't think such trades typically yield a center stud for
the rebuilding team (correct me if I'm wrong). Certainly, if (for the sake
of argument) you are San Antonio and faced with loosing Duncan you'd rather
get a Jermaine O'Neal back. But it isn't necessarily all up to San Antonio -
Duncan has to be willing to re-sign with his new team. And in any case by
the time 2003 rolls around who's to say if the shoe may be on the other
foot? A lot can happen in two years but I think it more likely that Indiana
implodes in the meantime rather than SA.

Perhaps the poor quality of our post players will preclude us from ever
putting together a package for a Mourning, but I don't think we should limit
our options so drastically - surely there are other options out there (as
mentioned in my examples) that would not be quite so exacting in terms of
trade value but that would still improve our center corps thereby enabling
us to compete for the ultimate prize. What I'm saying is that we will be
better served making that trade in two years than if we attempted to make
that same trade today.

Which leads me to your second point - today the Celtics are irrelevant.

Of course they are! You are right when you claim that they are right up
there with Detroit (and Chicago and you name it) in terms of irrelevance.
Right now there are many teams ahead of them in terms of desirability. No
one is claiming that such a trade could be pulled off today. The key is to
make the Celts less than irrelevant by the end of 2003. If that can be
accomplished through development of Pierce as a top 10 scorer, Walker as a
jack of all trades and the contributions of the three rooks and assorted
vets THEN perhaps the Cs will have moved from irrelevancy to up-and-coming
(like the Lakers with Eddie Jones in the early 90s). That is the challenge
that faces the team today. The key to that challenge is developing the new
talent they now have and molding it into a cohesive successful team unit.
Granted, that unit could never contend - the key is to get to the point
where we COULD contend if we can obtain a post stud - then the Cs would be
much more relevant for post players exploring their options.

Now it would of course be easier to trade a valuable all-star who is on the
downside for a young up-and-comer. That is what Indy did to get Jermaine
O'Neal. Even more ideal is simply having the first pick when a stud center
is in the draft. As you note this is the easiest way of getting them. BUT .
. . the Celts have not had the opportunity to exercise either option however
since Rick purged himself from the front office, so it really confuses the
issue to bring up such examples and point to them as guides for the C's
front office.

As I see it we really disagree about the relative priority of (a) putting in
place a fundamentally sound foundation for winning it all (i.e. a talented
big man is the rarest, most valuable aspect of such a team and so it should
be our #1 priority from the get-go), as opposed to (b) winning as quickly as
possible by stockpiling as much talent (regardless of position and overall
team structure) particularly with players most easily evaluated and
developed with the understanding that the team will need to be altered later
if it will ever have a chance at winning it all. I think we would all opt
for (a) under ideal circumstances but given our current situation (b) is
really the better path.