thinking it through

["Josh Ozersky" <jozersky1@xxxxxxxxxx>]

here's my column from hoopsworld...not much
by way of news (other than CW confirming an
interest in Tim Hardaway), but I've thought a lot
about the Nets, and try to make the case that they're
not that great, even with their new additions.

Josh

The Verdict

The Celtic Fan -- attended by nurses, sitting bolt-upright in
bed, flushed and anxious -- could use a little bit of good news now.
Some encouraging word. Some optimism, in what is surely the lowest
moment of the offseason. I don't know if I can offer it. But I will try.

First, let's state the obvious. Losing Rodney Rogers to the Nets is a
serious blow. What's worse is the reason why: we lost him because a
very rich man wanted to save money. It hurts badly, and it will hurt us
on the court next year, without a doubt. Don't kid yourself: the Nets
are a much stronger team now than they were before they added
Mutumbo and Rogers. They are much tougher and more physical; they
will rebound more and fast break more; and their defense will be much
better too. Who would you rather have to score against -- the plodding
McCulloch and the willowy, womanish Van Horn, or the man-eating
Mumumbo, and Rogers, with his herculean frame? I would take the first
two, and so did the Celtics, no matter what the matchup was. That won't
happen any more. No, there's no denying that Gaston's cupidity has
helped the Nets odds, should we have to get by them.

But the good news is: they are still not the better team.
Let's look on both sides of the court, starting with offense.

I am a big believer in difference-making players. Players that demand
double teams; players who can create their own shot. We have two
players like that, and the Nets have one. You need role players to keep
defenses honest, but in the playoffs, you basically try to keep it close,
and then let your stars decide the matter. In any event, that is what
usually happens. Though Jason Kidd is a one-man wrecking crew, and
an MVP-type talent, he really doesn't have any help. Mutumbo is actually
worse than Todd McCulloch on offense, and Rodney, despite his great
size and athleticism, isn't really that effective except as a spot-up shooter.
He knows how to play, and will fill lanes and post up smaller players. But
his role is basically the same as Dana Barros. Van Horn gave them a good
three point shooter too. What the Nets really needed was another quick
scoring guard who could create his own shot. Kittles, Harris, Martin,
Jefferson
-- all the Nets' good players are basically opportunistic scorers, who might
make a big shot now and again, but can't be depended on to make anything
happen.

That matters a lot, particularly in a short series, whether with us or
somebody
else: and the Nets just barely made it past a short-handed Charlotte team, you
may
remember. The last thing they are is some kind of 800 pound gorilla, as some
fans
have said. There is only one 800 pound gorilla in the NBA, and we all know who
that is.

On defense, the Nets have improved, but there are still some questions. The
strategy that worked against Mutumbo last year, of drawing him out with
quick, jumpshooting big men, should work fairly well this year as well. It
doesn't matter if they put in Rogers; he can't defend anybody out on the
perimeter either. (It's always on defense that tweeners hurt you.) As I
remember,
even Vin Baker, whom one would think of as the Celtic most likely to be shut
down by Mutumbo, can shoot from 20 feet out. Antoine will likely eat a few
shots when he beats his man inside, and finds the Ancient One there waiting
for him. We can live with that. But they still don't have anyone to defend him
on the perimeter, and they can't match up Pierce anywhere.

That's what I mean about difference makers. They are going to have to keep
throwing double teams at Pierce, who should get at least a little respect from
the Referees next year. (The Nets manhandled him shamelessly last year; that
was a big part of why he was so frazzled and worn out.) They have one major
advantage in Jason Kidd's ability to turn over the inexperienced Celtics
guards,
even if they do go out and sign a veteran to play 25 minutes a game. But I
still
don't think they have an answer for our tag team. If they keep double-teaming
Paul and Antoine, a lot of guys are going to get open shots.

Celtics Offense
Despite their no-name status and limited floor skills, I think you are going
to
see a much more efficient offense with J.R. Bremer, Shammond Williams, Tony
Delk, and Vin Baker than you did with Kenny Anderson, Erick Strickland, and
Rodney Rogers. Rogers is probably a more dependable spot-up threat than
Baker; but Kenny absolutely killed us with his spotty mid-range shooting, and
Stickland just doesn't have the touch, for all his grit and effort. If you
take a
good shooter and give him the ball by himself, he's going to shoot in the
mid-
thirties or higher. Rogers created some matchup problems for us, but in fact,
everybody is a matchup problem if they are undefended. The key will be how
Baker and our guards do in mid-range.

But all this presumes the same offense as last year. And that is not a safe
presumption at all. More likely, our offense will look dramatically different.
For the last ten years, people have been saying that the Celtics were doomed
to
fail, "because they have no low-post threat." It wasn't strictly true, because
Eric
Williams gave us a good weapon in the lane, when not over-used, and both
Antoine and Vitaly could score down low as long as there were no shotblockers
present. But let's say that the conventional wisdom was right, as it usually
is.
We now have a legitimate post threat, who (in theory, anyway) will cause
defenses
to collapse, giving Paul and Antoine much more room to operate. Moreover,
having a good player stationed near the basket means (again, in theory) that
you will get some strong-side rebounds, and not just what happens to come
near the quick hands of Pierce, Walker, and Battie. I for one can't imagine
what
the Celtics offense will look like; but I have to think it will be much more
dangerous,
even without the greater confidence and experience this past year has afforded
our two stars.

And it's not like we were getting much in the way of smooth playmaking before;
people who think the Celtics will be hurt by the lack of a "true" playmaker
must
have a pretty impoverished view of point guard play. Kenny ran a decent pick
and roll,
and was an impeccable ball handler, even under pressure. But that's about it.
Meanwhile, the addition of Kedrick Brown and Shammond Williams into the lineup
means that we will have a much faster, more athletic bench than last year --
raising hopes
that a fast-breaking second unit could somehow be developed.

On Defense, Baker has to be considered at least a potentially improvement over
both Potapkeno and Rogers. Those two strongmen, with their earthbound,
grappling style of defense, were more reminiscent of Nikolai Volkov and the
Iron Sheik than Parish and McHale; and while Baker probably won't be making
anybody's all-defensive team, he is big and athletic, and at one time knew
how
 to play low-post defense very effectively. The other players are primarily
defenders:
McCarty, Brown, Williams, and even Tony Delk. The only guy who is a known
sieve
 is Williams, and maybe O'Brien's discipline, along with a sprinkling of Dick
Harter
dust, may bring him around.

But any way you break it down, the Nets have not improved the basic makeup
of their team, and we have. The Nets will be better defensively, and much
better
at rebounding. But their offense isn't appreciably better, and who is to say
when
the aged Mutumbo might finally break down -- not to wish injury on anybody.
The Celtics, meanwhile, have added a major component that was completely
missing before, without really losing much. Rogers will help the Nets more
than
 his absence hurts us. It's entirely possible that Baker will fail to produce,
and
bring down the team with him. But right now, I think the Atlantic Division,
anyway, is the Celtics' to lose.

Help on the Way

All of the foregoing augury, of course, ignores the fact that we still hav a
roster
spot open. The Celtics know that somebody good is going to be available for
the
 minimum wage; they are waiting it out to see who it is. We've already read
about
several intriguing names: Travis Best, the brilliant, quicksilver combo guard
who
played so well in the Finals a couple of years ago; Greg Anthony, one of the
elite
defensive players in the league, and an able point; even the venerable Mookie
Blaylock, whom as late as 2000-2001 was one of the best all-around point
guards
in the league. And of course there is always the possibility of resigning
Erick Strickland.

But the most interesting possibility of all, to me anyway, was last week's
exclusive
 Hoopsworld rumor that the Celtics might be looking at Tim Hardaway, the
tough-as-nails
shooting/scoring combo guard who we all remember so fondly from his days in
Golden
State and Miami. The former crossover king's skills have been in steep
decline, but he
just may have something in the tank as a reserve. He averaged 4 assists a game
for
Dallas last year, and ten points a game, with 34% accuracy from behind the
line. He
hands are still quick, and he's a natural leader. Given his friendship with
Antoine Walker,
it seems a natural. He's as game as Erick Strickland, and significantly more
talented on
offense. Plus, you have to think it would be great to have a guy in the locker
room
who says things like, "Antoine's an asshole. He knows it, and I know it" to
reporters.

Chris Wallace has confirmed to me that Hardaway is one of the players the team
is
looking at; but wouldn't go any further, saying that an actual signing "could
happen
in a couple of days...or it could happen right before the season starts," as
with Erick
Strickland last year. Whatever happens, it seems a pretty sure bet that a
talented
ballplayer will be doing some distributing for us next year.