RE: [Celtics' Stuff Re: Salary dump?

["Berry, Mark S" <berrym@BATTELLE.ORG>]

Joe, this isn't a basketball trade. Look at Russell now, not his career
numbers. I don't care about his career numbers, because he'd be a
half-season rental. All I care about is what he brings right now-and that's
not much. Injuries, age, whatever have reduced him to an Eric Williams-level
player this season.

Anyway, this isn't about basketball or Bryon Russell. It's about shedding
the last year of Randy Brown's contract (2.5 mill) and the first-round pick
contract. It's about the luxury tax. That's all it's about. Bryon
Russell-this year's version-doesn't help. The Celts have no interest in
signing him after the season. There's absolutely no upside for the Celts
unless you believe Russell can suddenly channel the player he used to be.
Utah has given up hope of that.

Besides, even at his best, Russell was very much a product of the Jazz
system. He's a lousy ball-handler and passer. He used to be a decent spot-up
shooter who got great looks thanks to Stockton and Malone. He's still
getting the looks, but he's not knocking them down. The quality of his shots
would decrease drastically in Boston (as you yourself said, Utah's system
makes guys look better than they really are).

But all that's irrelevant because this is only about $$$$.

Mark

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	hironaka@nomade.fr [mailto:hironaka@nomade.fr] 
Sent:	Friday, February 15, 2002 9:55 AM
To:	berrym@BATTELLE.ORG
Cc:	Celticsstuffgroup@yahoogroups.com; celtics@igtc.com
Subject:	RE: [Celtics' Stuff Re: Salary dump?

>many Boston fans have been conditioned to
> believe that first-round picks are useless. They're 
not. You don't sell them to lower payroll. You sell them 
to create cap room to sign someone
> occasionally, but not just to lower payroll.
> 
> Mark

Yeah, and not just "occasionally".

For me the odd thing is how a guy like Joe Forte is 
reportedly making one million a year averaged out over 
the length of the contract, as a 21st pick. 

That's not even Palacio, McCarty or Brown level 
compensation. Obviously, rookies are a bargain. Wallace 
and Papile have said so several times in the past.

But in yesterday's Herald article, I don't recall anymore 
if it was ownership or the paper that suggested we'd dump 
the salary burden of a first round pick by doing this 
deal. That's what got everyone upset in the first place.

Is the following a fair description of the situation? The 
trade isn't about salary cap but rather about auditioning 
a known commodity for the playoff run over adding another 
rookie this summer. We already have three "rookies" on 
the roster next season and two more in 2003. That's five 
roster spots even without this summer's pick.

Bottom linr, whether or not its a good personnel decision 
(especially with Roshown "me the money" and ten other 
wing guard-forwards also on the roster), it still 
constitutes an actual basketball decision in my view. Its 
not about the 2003 free agents or the luxury tax. 

I presume Wallace has had his eye on Russell for quite 
awhile, even back to when he was priced out of reach.

So criticize his personnel judgement all you want. You 
won't hear any complaint from me. It doesn't seem like a 
position we need help at, yet he seems to covet the guy 
as an upgrade over what we have. 

Let's be fair to Russell. He just turned 31, yes, but as 
recently as last season he averaged 12.0 points over 78 
games including .413 on treys and .440 overall on a 
playoff team. Is that worth a bottom 20 draft pick? 

For his career, he's averaged 11 points and 4.6 rebounds 
on .452 shooting in 92 playoff games, which I bother 
mentioning because they are all better than his regular 
season career averages. The fact that he's started 59 
playoff games also is relevant, on a young team like 
Boston that will attend that dance for the first time in 
years.

And like Erick Strickland, maybe Wallace thinks BR might 
get a lot more open looks in Boston and thus a higher 
percentage on his treys. Russell is .367 on his career. 
What was Strickland's? Since coming to Boston, he's 
turned into a 40% shooter from that range.

Of all the possible trade scenarios we should be griping 
about, this one seems pretty defensible on basketball 
terms. I don't know why Wallace should be getting this 
level of grief. It certainly seems like he's damned if he 
acts before the deadline, damned if he doesn't. 

To be contrarian, it seems like all 29 teams are heading 
into 2003 with the same lemming mindset. No team seems 
willing to do anything for the present. I wonder if 
Boston could pull off a historic steal now by going 
completely against the grain from the 28 other teams? 

Joe











 
-------------------
L'e-mail gratuit pas comme les autres.
Pour crier votre adresse : http://www.nomade.fr/courrier/ouvrir.asp
NOMADE.FR, pourquoi chercher ailleurs ?



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Celticsstuffgroup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/