Re: Tim Hardaway vs. Eric Strickland

["hironaka@xxxxxxxxx"<hironaka@xxxxxxxxx>]

> ---------- Initial message -----------

> This is one of those decisions that could make a big 
difference. If you
> gamble on Hardaway and lose, you're in trouble. If you 
gamble on him and
> win, he could be a huge asset. Strickland is the more 
conservative choice
> with lower risk and lower reward. Considering the track 
record of the
> "braintrust," Strick probably is the way to go.
> 
> Mark
>


Hi Mark:

It sounds like that roster spot (point guard) might well 
be a last minute decision. 

As for the bench, there seems to be a lack of focus on 
Boston's part which goes even beyond just the financial 
constraints. 

Just as the NE Patriots continually add to the strength 
that already is their Special Teams, the Nets investment 
in their bench depth is a key to their success. To wit, 
Rodney Rogers gets 2.8, Aaron Williams 2.7 and Lucious 
Harris 2.65 million. 

As I believe you've written before, even if Walker/ 
Pierce /Baker go for 60 a night EVERY night, bench 
scoring will decide the difference in how far the Celtics 
get over 90 points...in other words, the difference 
between winning and losing a lot. The NBA bench is nearly 
analogous to NFL special teams (kicker etc.) They have to 
be effective scoring and defending. Imagine the Patriots 
if they relied on just their offense.

Yes, the Celtics also have accumulated two guys with 
competitive salaries on the bench in Shammond Williams (2 
million) and/or Tony Delk (2.7 milion). Of course, they 
unfortunately play the same position (midget shooting 
guard). But would you call this an illustration of 
"strategic focus" on the part of Celtics management?

The Celtics bench might not be bad. IF Battie and Kedrick 
(1.6 mill) come off the bench, they could generate some 
energy in addition to holding their own on some nights. 

Battie really emerged in the playoffs. He averaged 7.6 
boards and 1.88 blocks in just 28 minutes, and got better 
and stronger the further we progressed. I'm not even sure 
Magloire (Way's new crush) or Keon is the better 
prospect, although both are intriguing.

In the end, the Celtics might have an adequate NBA bench. 
And the key is that our starting lineup looks stronger, 
which is sometimes the price you pay for a major 
acquisition (remember how much weaker Philly's depth was 
after the year they acquired Moses Malone?).

But the superiority of the Nets bench is bound to turn 
Celts-Nets games into the same uphill battles we saw last 
Spring.

Aaron Williams hurt Boston even at times when we were 
shutting out the other four guys on the floor. He was 
very good.

Moreover, he's probably the least dependable scorer of 
their bench "Big Three" (Lucious/Rodney and Aaron). 
Lucious isn't exactly Andrew Toney, but he was a constant 
threat to score in the Boston series. And Rodney was one 
of only three Celts to average double figures last year, 
plus he can play three positions.

The Nets also added Chris Childs (1.6 million for 10 
minutes a game) and (not to rub it in) held on to all 
three first round draft picks from last year. 

Clearly Rod Thorn knows the importance of the bench, as 
well as the "economics" of what it costs to build one. It 
doesn't require stupid amounts of money (Vinnie earning 
more than four times what Rogers gets could be called 
stupid). 

But clearly it costs a bit more than the minimum salary. 
These days, not much more.

Meanwhile, "minimum salary" is the operative criteria for 
re-stocking Boston's bench. Obviously, there is no way 
Boston would have offered any bench role player 1.6 
million this summer. In fact, they dumped Joe Forte just 
to save the million bucks for one year.

Instead, we are asked to believe that no other team in 
the NBA was willing to offer a "high lottery pick" (Sun-
Dog) more than the 650,000 minimum salary. Luckily, it 
seems we're just smarter than everyone else.

Joe

-------------------
L'e-mail gratuit pas comme les autres.
NOMADE.FR, pourquoi chercher ailleurs ?