Re: Tim Hardaway vs. Eric Strickland

["Dan Forant" <dforant1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I wouldn't trust Hardaway's health. Between the 2 Strickland is the choice
here.

DanF
----- Original Message -----
From: "Berry, Mark S" <berrym@BATTELLE.ORG>
To: <celtics@igtc.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 3:18 PM
Subject: Tim Hardaway vs. Eric Strickland


> These are the two names we continue to hear bandied about for the point
> guard spot. I'm torn between the two.
>
> On one hand, I agree with Josh about Hardaway's potential value. He's a
> point guard. He knows how to play. He's a veteran who should have the
> respect of Antoine, a Chicago buddy. He can hit the three-point shot. And
> he's not afraid to work hard on defense, even if he can't physically
handle
> the rigors of 30-plus minutes of hard defense.
>
> But can Hardaway still play at all? That's the question I have. Is he
> finished? I really don't know. A veteran presence is only so valuable if
he
> no longer can contribute on the floor. Charles Oakley is a great example.
> Mitch Richmond is another.
>
> This is doubly important for the Celts because they desperately need
whoever
> they sign to come in and contribute significantly, either starting or off
> the bench. They have no depth at all. The bench could be truly horrific.
If
> they sign Hardaway and he can't play, it's a disaster. They can't afford
to
> waste another roster spot.
>
> On the other hand, you have Strickland. He's not really a point guard, but
> he can play there. He would give the Celts three guys playing point guard
> and no true point guard in the bunch. He's not a good decision-maker. He's
> best suited for the same role Delk should be playing-backup shooting
> guard/emergency point guard.
>
> But Strickland, we know, still has some game left. He can defend and be
> physical. He brings a spark of intensity off the bench. He's not a leader,
> but he's a good chemistry guy.
>
> It's a tough call. In a perfect world where Hardaway can give you 25
minutes
> per game, then you sign Hardaway. But I need to know he can do that. If he
> can't-if he's Mitch Richmond-then I go with Strickland. The Celtics can't
> afford to carry anyone else who can't help. They already have a bench of
> Shammond Williams/Delk, Eric Williams/Tony Battie, Kedrick Brown, Walter
> McCarty, JR Bremer and Bruno Sundov. If it ends up Shammond, Ewill,
Kedrick,
> Walter, Bremer and Sundov, that may very well be the most impotent bench
in
> the league.
>
> 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