Re: [Celtics' Stuff Delk or Strickland

["Dan Forant" <dforant1@nycap.rr.com>]

I like Strickland also. Where would we be without him this season?? He's had
some big games. OB's got to get his act together with the starters and subs.
We now have to play the hand we drew. We're done trading till after the
season.

DanF


----- Original Message -----
From: "JB" <JBMetzEA@yahoo.com>
To: <Celticsstuffgroup@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: "Celtics@igtc" <celtics@igtc.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2002 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Celtics' Stuff Delk or Strickland


> 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 !