No Subject

(1) Option one is hampered by the inexact nature of drafting high school big
men which would have involved the further risk of 'putting all of our eggs
in one basket'. Perhaps Curry or Tyson or Diop will become the big man we
could have used. Could we have got them? And if we could, would they develop
and stay injury and attitude free? Would they stay or would the inevitable
losing that takes place during their development incline them to depart?

(2) Options one and two are closely related because both emphasize the
importance of obtaining that post stud now and as such they are variants of
strategy (a). Option one would have done so through the draft, option two in
a post draft trade/signing or combo. The latter option runs up against the
difficulty you yourself have pointed our regarding our current irrelevancy
in the NBA. I don't think Mason is knocking down the door to sign with the
Celts (not that he would help in the long term) and we don't have the
playoff proven vets to pull off an O'Neal-to-Indiana style coup either. At
this point I only see us overpaying because our commodities are undervalued
after 3 1/2 years of headless chicken foolishness.

(3) Attempt to develop an exciting, up-and-coming donut team along the lines
of Milwaukee and then plan to bite the bullet on a trade to put you over the
top after developing some equity in your personnel. This strategy is not
risk free but it at least it is not 'all or nothing' in the same way option
one is. In fact we could work our way up to obtaining the desired post stud
through a series of trades that step-by-step enhances our post personnel (as
Alex has just noted on an e-mail). In the mean time the Cs add the most
easily and quickly developed players who not only have potential but can
also contribute much more quickly to winning than a high school big man
could. Winning will not only increase the value of all our players, it will
also make Boston much less irrelevant when it comes FA time - so the quicker
the winning comes the quicker we can contemplate correcting the fundamental
structural imbalances of the team. None of this is to say success is a
foregone conclusion but *under the circumstances* it seems to me that
Wallace has chosen the most reasonable path back to the top.

I understand that one fear is that the team developed under option (3) will
resemble the Bucks of the 80s or perhaps even the Trailblazers of the early
90s - good but never good enough. That fear is reasonable but I think such
failure may stem in part from a certain lack of nerve on the part of those
teams' front offices. We have not had an opportunity to see if our current
front office has such a problem because we are not even good yet. My fear is
that if we were to pursue strategy (a) we would never get to the point where
we ARE considered relevant because of the losing involved with big man
development. We would therefore end up leaking talent via free agency and/or
lop-sided trades because those would be the only kind of trades available to
us. Rather than gamble on developing high school big men we should first
escape irrelevancy by stockpiling talent regardless of position and then we
should be in a *better* position to address the structural deficiencies you
and I both deplore.

Now allow me put my spin on your assessment of my position - I think
developing a winning team (no matter how badly flawed) with a number of
valuable players is far less risky option (insofar as it grants the GM much
more flexibility) than limiting oneself to one throw of the dice by trading
for an untested big man in the draft. Such a strategy is not the same as
'pinning one's hopes on landing Mourning etc' - it is rather a means of
providing the GM the resources needed to pursue a Mourning IF one became
available. I think there is a big difference - the difference between
wishful thinking versus putting in place the resources needed to seize upon
potential opportunities down the road.

Best wishes - Tom Murphy

----- Original Message -----
From: Berry, Mark S <berrym@BATTELLE.ORG>
To: <tfmiii@worldnet.att.net>; <celtics@igtc.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: the future of the center spot


> Here's the thing about your strategy... Teams never trade a great big man
> unless they're forced to do it. Either the player forces the hand with his
> behavior, or the contract situation forces it. And when they do make those
> trades, they almost always try to get a serviceable big man in return. For
> example, if Duncan hypothetically tried to force a trade, do you think San
> Antonio would be more interested in a Paul Pierce package or a Jermaine
> O'Neal package? As great as Pierce is, I'd almost guarantee that a package
> built around Jermaine O'Neal would be more valuable to the Spurs because
of
> the scarcity of impact big men. When Mourning forced his way out of
> Charlotte, Miami won the bidding war not just because of Glen Rice, but
> because of Matt Geiger, who was considered a promising young center at the
> time. The Celtics don't have any big people to give in return in that
> situation. It's the age-old adage... "You don't trade big for small."
>
> Also, like it or not, the Celtics are irrelevant. The Pistons had cap room
> and the hometown advantage, but Chris Webber didn't seriously consider
going
> there because the team wasn't competitive. I'm sorry, but the Celts are in
> that same group of teams as the Pistons, and there aren't any Boston-born
> all-star big men hitting free agency anytime soon. The Celtics have to
make
> win and make this an attractive place to play. There are many, many teams
> ahead of them in that regard.
>
> You think hinging all your hopes for success on landing Tim Duncan, Alonzo
> Mourning or Jermaine O'Neal-when every other team in the league will be
> after them as well-is less risky than trading for an untested big man in
the
> draft? I absolutely disagree. The easiest way to get those big guys is
> through the draft, and that's exactly because they are unproven. When they
> get in the league and prove themselves, they become untouchable. Indy gave
> up an all-star power forward (Dale Davis) for Jermaine O'Neal before
O'Neal
> had ever gotten off the bench. It was an expensive, gutsy move-exactly the
> kind you have to make if you dare to be great.
>
> So, I'd say the Celtics are on the right track as far as stockpiling
talent,
> but they need to find some serviceable big men not only to help them win
> now, but to give them chips when they finally decide to make that big play
> for a star big guy. The chance won't come around often, so they better be
> ready when it does.
>
> Mark