Re: [Celtics' Stuff Delk or Strickland

[JB <JBMetzEA@yahoo.com>]

on 2/24/02 6:20 PM, davidp4660@aol.com at davidp4660@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 02/24/2002 5:39:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
michael.j.marlow.01@alum.dartmouth.org writes:


Well, I don't know about everyone else but I've become really attached to
Strickland's toughness and intensity. But it appears the Cs effectively
opted for Tony Delk with this trade. (That's how Peter May sees it, and the
case he presents is pretty convincing to me). Now everyone is saying they
are similar players but I don't see that toughness/meannes or intensity in
Delk. His defense on Mobley absolutely sucked last night. Nothing against
Delk, he's always seemed like a good player when I've seen him, but I would
have rather have kept Strickland. Toughness and intensity is not something
the Cs are high on. Anyone else have a preference? Or am I splitting hairs?
            M.M.

Personally, I like them both.  I would do whatever it took to sign
Strickland-I don't see him commanding too much money. I like his grit and
toughness.  The guy has to be good for 30-40 falls to the floor in an
attempt to take a charge.  He also gives the same type of energy to the team
as McCarty, only with a better shot.  If you are going to keep 15 players on
a roster, I think we can find room for Forte, Delk and Strickland.
                DavidP
      
   After reading Peter May's depressing analysis of our roster next year, in
this AM's Globe, I've also been wondering about our priorities, for future
player management.
   There has to be more than 9 players on a roster, doesn't there?
   Hopefully we'll go for balance this time.
   I see three centers: Battie, Blount and Vitaly. That's easy. We've got em
now and no body wants em and we won't pay enough to get another.
   At the power forward spot: Walker and Rogers.
   Now that we've seen him close up, we know that's the only position on the
floor he can play, but he can play it effectively. He does post up well and
he creates a lot of space for himself. A poor man's Maurice Lucas, perhaps.
If we don't sign Rogers, we would have to go get another 4. A necessity,
please. 
   Thinking about his value on the free agent market, he is a bit
undersized, can't see him at center and certainly too broad to play the
three. Only a team without a solid power forward in front of him, should
want to give him a big payday. Why pay big money for a back up? I also think
it's time Antoine was told to play hard for 30-35 minutes a game and take
some rest. With a team that's not hustling, or rebounding, late in games,
that seems like a no brainer.
   At the point, we still have Kenny. This back up void is another
necessity. If Wallace really likes Cook,  I can't believe that he'd risk
letting  him get away, because of some  notion that we can only break in two
players at a time. Sign him, put him on the DL if you insist, but get him in
practice and evaluate. We have to know whether he can play, or, if we need
to do something else to fill that spot. We are living on borrowed time with
Anderson. His injury history is apparent and the only thing keeping him from
being overused right now are fouls.
At least going into the season, on the decision not to sign Jacques Vaughn
or Khald El-Amin, Chris had the excuse of having Randy Brown and Palacio to
back up Kenny.
   At the off guard:  Delk, Strickland and Forte. If Delk starts, we
certainly have room for Strickland, as a combo guard and intensity guy.
   At small forward: Pierce, Kedrick Brown and Williams. No problems here.
The All-Star, his caddy and Mr. Indispensible. As with Walker, Pierce should
be ready to exert full energy for 30-35 minutes a game. No resting on the
floor, now that we have expanded our rotation.
   By my count, without Rogers or Strickland, we would have only 10 players,
so we would have to sign them, or some like them, or; perhaps? Maybe we
could file for chapter 11? Sign a point guard, makes 13. If you want to keep
Walter for short money and keep a roster spot open, so be it, but we need at
least 12 , so I've got to figure Rogers and Strickland are back next year,
unless they don't like the shortened minutes. A lot depends on how well the
team jells and what playoff impact we make. Who wants to sit on the bench
for an also ran? While a team on the way up, may be attractive.
  The litmus test, next summer, for the ownership, will be if they sign
Strickland and Rogers. I mean, we have to have at least twelve roster
players, don't we?  Most teams will carry 15. If we don't sign them, what
will we do? Sign a couple of guys at the minimum? We'd be back at the same
place as before the trade. Too thin to compete.

             JB



                  Unchain My Heart !