Re: Antoine and the Boobirds

[bird <birdwl@earthlink.net>]

> From: Kestas <Kestutis.Kveraga@dartmouth.edu>
>
> At 15:14 4/1/2002 -0800, I wrote:
> >And even for Kestas, it seems the team's success is totally
> >dependent on "reining in" his evil, goatee-wearing evil side.
>
> Not totally, but let's face it - this team's fortunes are going to depend 
> a
> lot more on Walker than, say, McCarty or Potapenko. The other players don'
> t
> have a multi-year debate about them because 1) it's clear to everyone what
> they are, and/or 2) they're irrelevant.

OK, fair enough, but I already knew you are among the more reasonable of 
Walker's longtime critics.  Yes, I won't try to argue that Antoine Walker 
*isn't* an integral part of the success of the team, but I did want to 
point out how for some he's both the player that is the key, and also the 
bum who'll never amount to anything.

As for Walker, I like Cecil's koan about him: He is what he is.  This is 
similar to the first of your two enumerated points.  Both of which sound 
good but aren't really true, imo. 1) people *think* it's clear what the 
other players are, but who was wrong about how Kenny was going to play 
this year?  Blount, even.  Perhaps it was "clear" from last year that he'd 
be serviceable.  *Bzzzz*, thanks for playing.  It's common around here to 
discount any possibility of a player improving, and changing his game, yet 
it happens all the time.  And 2) is just a throw-away comment that you 
probably don't even believe fully.  The other players are (much?) less 
important, but not irrelevant.  If they were, I'm sure Gaston would 
jettison them to save some money.

> What is there to discuss about Paul Pierce?

I don't know.  Perhaps some of the same criticisms Walker gets from time 
to time.  No, Pierce is held up on a pedestal, so that's not going to 
happen.

> I think it's pretty clear what
> he is. Same for Rodney Rogers, or Strickland, or Eric Williams.  Some
> others just don't mean as much to the team, whatever the fluctuations in
> performance within the limits of their modest talent may be.

Yet, apparently they do mean a lot to the team.  Perhaps not "as much" but 
still.  Using the "importance" criteria, you'd think we'd discuss Pierce a 
lot, too.  Not the case.

As for Rogers and EWill, we could talk about how their names get 
continually misspelled on this list ("Rodgers" and "Erik Williams"), but 
that's not all that useful.  In addition, we could prognosticate on 
whether or not Rogers will re-sign, and how much we're baffled at EWill.  
OK, we already do the latter.

> I suppose I could discuss Delk - is he really that bad a shooter? How many
> decent shooting games, not counting garbage time in the Dallas blowout, 
> has
> he had with the Celtics? Is there anything else he can do when his shot is
> not falling, which it usually isn't? Did we acquire an overpriced Erick
> Strickland with less defense, size, aggressiveness, and shooting ability?

All good questions, and a welcome change from the Great Antoine Walker 
debate.  But just so I'm clear: Antoine Walker does need to improve his 
shot selection (which is actually better this year than last) and also his 
decision-making on the break.  Eventually, I'd also like to see him work 
on the post moves to cut down on blocks and bad misses down low.  Oh, and 
he could work for more rebounds, because the team desperately needs 'em.  
What I *don't* think is that Antoine is a stupid basketball player that 
just needs to "get his head on straight" or just understand what the "fans"
in the stands booing him are trying to "tell" him.  That's bull crap in my 
view.

As for Delk, it's nice that we have him for so long at what seems to be 
reasonable money, but it's more important to resign Rogers.  It's 
ludicrous, imo, to say that the team needs Rogers *or* Walker, but not 
both.

Bird