[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: All the whining about Gaston

From: "James A. Hill" <jahill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Rogers was going to NJ to play with Kidd this year unless some team "vastly"
overpaid him anyway. I suggest that he went to NJ for less then it would
have taken the Celtics to resign him. Since there wasn't any real interest
in him this off season his going to NJ was a done deal for a long time or
the Celtics priced him pretty accurately.
Huh? Did you read the Springer article that quoted Rogers and his agent as saying that Boston was their first choice? Granted, they may be posturing, but you credit quotes of his in other areas. There's very little basis for saying that it would have taken the C's more than NJ to sign him. All this is based on the Kidd-Rogers tampering thing? Seems tenuous.


Gaston just gambled on a 4 time all star with a max contract. This gives us
three max contracts. How many other teams in the league have that? What a
cheapskate!
You make nothing of the fact that he actually saved $1 million this year with the deal, then? I'm starting to think Gaston really *is* a cheapskate. Not that he won't spend any money, because he will, but because, with his plan of "fiscal responsibility", he may just be hurting the team. Just because a guy shells it out for three guys, doesn't mean he's paying all he needs to. He's has to surround those guys with some talent, a bench, starting players of quality. Well, maybe they've done that -- last year's team certainly overachieved, I just don't know. What I do know is, Gaston lives in fear of a tax that may never come, and it looks like half his fellow owners will outspend him. That last one, especially, can't be a good sign, can it?


If Baker works out, then the team is a PG and a couple bench guys like
Rogers away from a real run at it.  If he doesn't, then going into luxury
tax area and overpaying for Rogers would have been a waste of money, IMO.
Plus without Rogers, OB has to play Baker and can't just hide him on the
bench like he does others.
Well, that's a good point about Baker, but I'm not sure that they needed to get rid of Rogers to sign Baker. You say if Baker doesn't work out, then getting into the tax area would have been a waste, but that's one reason they'd *need* a decent bench, like one with Rogers on it. If Vinnie falters or even fails, the gamble is over, and the team pays the price. Just because you're gambling doesn't mean you don't cover your ass.
Hundreds of failed gamblers leave Vegas every month because they didn't do so. I'd just like the owner of the Boston Celtics to be smarter than that. Look, what if they could have Rogers for 2-3 million a year, or even a relatively big name free agent for say, the better half the exception? Shouldn't they take it, now, because with the Baker deal, it's all a big gamble? Shore up some spots like the bench and pg. Oh, sure, it'll cost Gaston X amount ($10 million? $20 million?), but should I care about that?

All this just to avoid the tax? Looks like about half the teams in the entire league are going to pay more than Boston. They don't seem all that worried. There are some good teams paying more, too. In fact, only Detroit and the Spurs are successful and aren't on the fast track to (possible) Taxville. Do you really think the team will do as well as last year without paying for talent?


There is more to this then meets the eye in my opinion.

I couldn't agree more.

Bird