rambling on Rogers, etc.

[gene kirkpatrick <gk_tyler@xxxxxxxxx>]

I have mixed feelings about signing Rogers via the
blank checkbook approach, if that news was accurate. 
If we have absolutely nothing left, it will destroy
our ability to develop other big men.

Rogers is important, but not all important.  For
instance, I would rather have the two big men--DD and
DS--the European and the rookie than Rogers; I say
that fearing that it will be Rogers and not the other
two.  Rogers gives us points, he spells Walker, he has
improved defensively and with his inside game, but
he's about at his peak and a four-year deal? (I'm
guessing here) would be a lot of commitment for what
he will give us.  And we still will not have helped
ourselves in the paint.

I guess I'm not too concerned about being in the
conference championship game at all costs next year. 
I want to see a team that can develop into more than a
contender.  And that, to me, means a team with some
muscle, some scoring in the paint.  Nobody does that
on this team!  Pierce drives in there, Walker
occasionally flits in for the baby hook, Battie can
follow up with a dunk, but nobody regularly posts up,
takes a dribble and a six foot bank shot.  We can't
win without real, bona-fide inside players.  So, we
get lucky and draft a pretty fair one; we set our
sights on one from Europe, but they may not make the
squad due to McCarty and Blount!  Hold that NBA
Ticket.  

And yet, my fears subside when I think that OB and
Wallace know more about this than I do.  I'll stop
since this is therapy for me but not necessarily for
anyone else.  Cheers, Gene
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com