Re: Rogers not going to Nets (Yes he is)

[bird <birdwl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: Kim Malo <kimmalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> But huge blow? This makes him sound irreplacable. When what I saw was an 
> undersized but willing banger who spent too much time outside the paint 
> and was clearly too often a step slow in responding defensively, to loose 
> balls, and to rebounds that didn't fall into his hands. While taking way 
> too many outside shots - something we already had enough people doing. We 
> won't even discuss some attempted ballhandling, including some attempted 
> end to ends that liven my nightmares. A few more things, but that's the 
> basic idea. While he helped us get where we did, perhaps his limitations 
> are part of why that was no further.
This seems somewhat revisionist, doesn't it, Kim?  'Leastways, it's not 
how I remember it, anyway.  I thought Rogers was very quick for his size, 
though not so much laterally (that is, on defense, as far as staying in 
front on a guy on the perimeter), especially in grabbing loose balls.  
Though you're right about his ball-handling, it's not as if it was on 
display often.  In fact, I particularly liked his drives to the basket -- 
the first step, for a man his size, was fast.  As for the outside shots, I 
disagree completely -- I think that was the whole plan, and in fact, 
Rogers displayed a tentativeness when he first got to the C's that 
eventually went mostly away, for the good of all.  While no doubt his 
limitations *were*, indeed, part of why the team went no further (as were 
all the limitations of everyone who played), I'm just not sure that really 
means anything -- in the long run, he was more of an asset than a 
liability, faults and all.


> He's a good journeyman player. More someone who filled a need we had at 
> the time as well as we could (which is not to say optimally) than an 
> inherently huge blow. And other than the ongoing presence of Walker and 
> Pierce our team has enough changed that he may not have fit in as well 
> with this year's. While on paper, yeah, it looks like he makes NJ's bench 
> better, I go back to his slowness in reacting vs their young legs and 
> kind of wonder how true this is. Guess we'll see the results.
Well, we'll all see.  It's one thing to say that, with the line-up changes,
 maybe Rogers wouldn't have fit it, and maybe that would have been the 
case, but the guy "fit in" wherever he went, and his presence on the team 
now would scream "sixth man".  He could back up any one of three 
players/positions.  Whether or not he'll help NJ significantly or not, we 
let one of our top five guys go to, not only a division rival, but perhaps 
the most important competition we have in the Conference.  Oh, and the 
reason?  Thou shalt not pay the luxury tax.  It's one thing to lose him -- 
bad move but there are restrictions, oh, well.  But to lose him to NJ?  
The team we played in the previous years' Conference Finals?  Bad juju.  
While I fervently hope that your wonderings turn out to be the case, and 
thus minimizes Rogers' effectiveness with the Nets, I can't help 
ultimately feeling that no good will come of this.  Geez, even a 
sign-and-trade to a Western team is favorable to this.  Oh, right, can't 
do that because the owner won't pay the tax.  Looks like there are more 
owners than just Portland, Cuban, NY and Miami that are willing to risk 
the tax, though.

Then again, Jim makes a good point about NJ''s timetable: they need to go 
for it all now, seeing how they must entice Kidd to remain to keep the 
core guys from this group together for the next few years.  They are under 
pressure.  It's just that I don't see what will significantly change in 
the C's situation next year: no significant money coming off the payroll, 
afaik.  (Other than the situation brewing with Sundov.  If he plays well, 
C's will not retain him.  But we get to keep him if he''s more like Mark 
Blount!  Great.)  What I'm saying is, isn't now the Celtics' time, as well?
  They may have until Walker's contract is up to make a run.  The time is 
either "now" or "real damn soon" isn't it?

I am not one of these people who, every year, decry what the Celts have 
done in the off-season and say, if only they'd have picked up this guy, 
traded that guy, done this, moved that like the way I wanted them to, they 
would have a chance.  Except maybe this year.  The iron looked hot to me, 
and as long as you struck it with the acquisition of Baker, you might as 
well have finished the job by grabbing a decent pg and retaining a pretty 
good sixth man.  You're going to need to develop or acquire a bench anyway.
  Well, maybe the pg will come, there is still time.  It''s s sad state of 
affairs when you let a Rodney Rogers go because you only offered him 1 
million dollars, though.  (The league needs a new CBA -- the current one 
sucks donkey.  And/or better negotiators for the players' side.  One that 
doesn't let phrases like "sole discretion" make it to the final draft, or 
at least doesn't challenge it after it becomes clear the owners are going 
to do whatever they want ... shocking!  What does "sole discretion" mean 
again?  Duh.)  All this "Championship-on-a-budget!" thinking is just plain 
weird.

I won't coronate NJ yet, though.  Clearly they are favored, and with good 
reason.  But anything can happen, and more than just one unexpected thing 
*will* happen in the upcoming season.

Bird