Re: Did Harold Katz make this trade? Huzza!

[Kim Malo <kimmalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 11:23 PM 8/6/02 -0400, Josh Ozersky wrote:
> Yeah, they did, but they also added 12+ rebounds from
> the center position, and allowed their athletic forwards
> and guards to gamble on defense.  Getting Jefferson more
> minutes will help them too.
I'm not so sure that's what they did add, though. He's 36 years old and has 
started to really show his age. Last season was 10.8 not 12+ and with age 
factoring in, that's more likely to go down than to go back up over 12. Not 
that that I'm saying that's in any way chopped liver. You do leave off the 
blocks total, which is probably even more key to why they took him. As the 
fact that they'll likely get almost no offense from him other than tip ins 
(another factor in the reduced rebound total over career totals) is also 
key into why he's a mixed blessing. Think of it as taking pressure to play 
aggressive defense (vs just positioning for the boards) off Battie and 
Baker : )

That being said, I think we're looking at this wrong. I would absolutely 
LOVE to know the truth about how much of this move might have been 
triggered by the Cs improvement in the middle with Vin (and no matter how 
you feel about the deal, even Vin at his worst is still an improvement on 
our inside options, especially on the offensive end). I definitely think 
that factored into it to some degree. The fact that we lost to Joisey 
doesn't change the fact that we got that far and have 2 of the better 
players in the league, who are showing giant steps in improvement and if 
we're really lucky, we've added another very useful piece. I think we've 
been wallowing in depression about the Cs being down for so long that we 
can't even recognize some of the significance of the change in circumstance 
and how their competition might view it. Not saying we don't have holes, 
just that I think we're now viewed as competition enough that what we do 
has to factor into what other teams in our division do.

Kim