Re: rambling on Rogers, etc.

[Kim Malo <kimmalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 03:24 PM 7/1/02 -0700, gene kirkpatrick wrote:
> 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.
Yes and no. A point that gets somewhat lost in this whole discussion is 
that the luxury tax issue is basically a one year problem because Kenny's 
9MM this year is the last year of his contract. And in fairness to Rogers, 
no one's saying that he's looking for outrageous money. So at worst, he's 
likely to delay things by a year even if the alternatives available then 
are different from the ones now. It's a big reason DS going to Europe for a 
year would be helpful.


> 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.
Mmmm this gets into my own ambiguity issues. Change is not necessarily 
improvement. And I get really tired of the fact that for some people (not 
you Gene) there's a knee jerk reaction where every college/foreign/free 
agent big man is presumed to be better than anyone we have. IMO it's grass 
is greener syndrome -i.e. simply because they haven't yet disappointed us 
and they can still 'develop'. That's nice but can gets too often assumed to 
mean will, and will develop into what we hope they can be. Rodney to me is 
at least an upper level journeyman, who fills a need fairly well 
(especially by today's NBA standards) if not superbly. There's also the 
problem we've had over the past few years where there's a symbiosis between 
the different players' needs to develop. Nobody on this team is a finished 
product, as good as they're going to get, with the probably exception of 
Kenny and I suspect Rodney (although there's still some getting used to his 
teammates factoring in room for improvement there). Which means that 
everyone's development/lack thereof is affected by everyone else's. It's a 
big part of our offensive problems and it's part of why I don't have as 
huge a problem with lack of rookie PT as some people. And it's also part of 
why I'm not panting over swapping Rodney in the rotation for a young big 
man or two with real possibilities BUT...  Sorry, but any big man likely to 
fit seamlessly into the rotation would have been long gone by then no 
matter how much upside the guys we're looking at have. While our biggest 
existing disappointments looked good enough to be drafted/picked up as a FA 
at some point or they wouldn't be there. So like it or not, trying to 
integrate those guys is going to affect the development of everyone else 
from Pierce to Brown and unless we're very very very lucky, not for the 
better. Which still may be worth it in the end, but is something I don't 
think gets enough attention.


> 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.
Well, I'm not sure I wholly agree that we can't win without a bona fide 
post player, hoops purist though I am. It certainly makes it a lot easier 
and I'd rather we had one, but in today's diluted NBA and given the fact 
that you don't try to match up to Shaq you try to avoid him...

As for baby hooks, I wish Vitaly would take the one he practices in the 
pre-games and take it into a game sometime. Of course I also wish he could 
be trusted to catch a pass and put it up. I'll give Rogers that - he's got 
much better hands than Vitaly.

If we could only get Vitaly taken out for the entire season, we could apply 
for a disabled player exemption and use that to pay someone. Anyone got 
some North End connections?

And I do agree that I don't think McCarty and especially not Blount should 
in any way block attempts to develop alternatives. Rogers is a different 
category.


> 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.
Therapy's good. And it's the same sorts of thoughts I think we're all 
having that don't have a mind set in stone one way or another. I'm not a 
fan of Rogers but recognize that he's a serviceable alternative, which is 
better than can be said about many players and which there is no guarantee 
the two europeans will ever be (IMO big man play is particularly hard to 
really judge how it will translate to the NBA from college or Europe) . If 
nothing else, he can bang enough to put McDyess back on IR if he's not 
already there when we play them : )

Kim