Re: Rumors

[bird <birdwl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: JB <jimmetz@xxxxxxx>
>
> 	I expect you've been paying attention and the below posts, as
> attribution, may just be, in your mind, "hazy wisps," if not from
> dreams, clairvoyance, or a drunken stupor, then from the keyboard of
> some overambitious, bored sports writer, but there were attributions
> posted here. First, from ESPN. As you say; "the major sports media,"
> sometimes gets at least a few details correct.
True, but what are we latching on to?  A "few details" that are correct?  
Which ones?  How correct?  Me, I''d rather wait to see who's actually on 
the team.  It's a little like the hanging on every word of 
sportswriters.   Springer writes about K. Brown, has lot's of positives 
things to relate, comes out with one criticism from the coaching staff, 
and people go into a tizzy.  Where's the fire?  I'm not from Missouri, but 
I like being shown things, not just told.  In the progression of 
information from source, though media, to audience, much is lost.  It's 
buried there, somewhere beneath the hook, the "oh-so-clever-puns", the 
one-sentence paragraphs, the "we-know-you-have-the-attention-span-of-a-fly"
 writing style, the absolute necessity for a conflict to sell papers, or 
subscriptions, or whatever.  It's all a bit silly to me.  Anyway, you're 
right, this particular rumor has more "legs" than usual, but that's really 
not saying much, is it?


> 	The second reference from the active, professional media, was the
> Indiana Star, which quoted Donnie Walsh as saying that that deal was not
> on the table, but the article went on to state that "league officials
> confirmed" that Boston and Indiana were involved with a third team, but
> "sources" said that Tinsley was not part of the deal. Walsh did say that
> Croshere was discussed by several teams.
I know, but let me clarify; I didn't mean to suggest that the "legit" 
media have some sort of monopoly on the reporting of truth.  Frankly, they'
re almost as bad -- worse, if you think of them as professionals.  Look at 
the paragraph above, what do you truly know from it?  Nothing.  Oh, you 
could say that "Croshere was discussed by several teams", but what's 
"several"?  Plus, players are "discussed" all the time.  What if Walsh is 
misdirecting the media, i.e. lying?  I'll wait until Croshere shows up in 
a C's uniform, or at least until something is announced officially.  I don'
t even get the thrill of knowing beforehand.  Like I said before, you 
"know" it, but then it doesn't turn out to happen, so what did you really 
know?


> 	Anyway, I'm sorry you don't get into this type of speculation. For
> me, I love it and this "rumor," has enough "legs" to get my juices
> flowing.
Don't cry for me, Argentina.  I'll be fine -- there's a summer league game 
on tomorrow, where actual players on the Boston Celtics Roster (well, for 
now) will play, and I will watch them.  All is well.  Clearly, many people 
do like this sort of thing, and more power to them.


> 	I'm not liking the Croshere element, but if we could get a starting
> center out of trading Anderson's salary spot and pick up a decent point
> guard; a la Jaques Vaughn, or Jeff McInnis, I'd accept losing Rogers. If
> not, I'm with you on Rodney. He's got the respect around the league and
> "panache," which gives the team the intangible emotional stability that
> I doubt that Austin could provide.
Geez, again with the "Jacques Vaughn" :)   Oh, I know, maybe he would work 
out splendidly with the C's.  I'd like McInnis, though; he had a good year 
and really performed well (saw a few Clippers games after the early C's 
game last year on the Pass).  I'd like Croshere on the team: re-teaming 
with Harter might be just the ticket, as well as getting out from under 
"Coach" Thomas, though his contract is large.  Larry Bird liked him well 
enough and that goes a long way for me.  Wouldn't want to replace Rogers 
with him: I don't think they're similar enough players -- e.g. Croshere 
playing the pivot.  (huh?)  Croshere's contract makes it likely he wouldn'
t be an addition, though, but rather a replacement.

I also think low-balling Rodney Rogers may prove to be a Bad Thing (tm), 
but you never know.  If they offered him $5mil/year to start, people would 
complain that they overpayed.  This way, maybe we get Rogers for cheap now,
 but *wink wink* more later.  Or maybe Rodney wants the security of a 
longer contract and goes elsewhere.  Speculation is just that: speculation,
 and we kid ourselves if we think we really have an informed position from 
which to operate.  Then again, almost every thing here is speculation and 
opinion, and it's almost always fun.  It's just that in the off-season, 
there's no actual game playing to counteract the trade speculation, that's 
all.  As long as there's a CBA, it won't last forever.  Each thing in it's 
season ... turn, turn, turn ... yada yada yada.

Anyway, I'd like to see what "this team" (i.e. most of the guys from last 
year) can do after a full season together, but, many Eastern teams have 
improved, and we need to keep up with the Joneses.  Wouldn't expect much 
from rookies, as they are rookies, and the team is coached by Obie-won, 
after all.  Still, Cook, especially, might be what we need.  So, too, was 
every point guard or experiment that breezed through town in the last 
decade, though.  Kenny could have trade value this year for once, though.  
It'd be really lame if they traded away Kenny and he turned out to be the 
only guy who can play the point reasonably well, though.  I mean, you *had*
 to stick with him before, you don't necessarily want to give him away 
when you have no backup options available.  Plus, I'd think that just the 
mere fact of his enormous, bloated salary coming off the books next year 
would be enough reason for rejoycing on a grand scale at the time; that is,
 if we get nothing for Kenny but the lack of his salary, is it worth it?  
Yes.   (I mean, no offense to Kenny, who really tried hard and played well 
last year, but c'mon, it's like we're paying three max contracts for two 
stars.)  Then again, if we have one guy (Cook, Delk, Forte, ? -- what with 
Strick looking gone and all) who can run the point, we ought to at least 
see what Kenny might fetch with his renewed vigor and expiring contract.  
(Take a look at that "point guard" list, though, for a sec: Unproven, 
Consensus around here is "a backup point, *if* that", Even more Unproven, 
and a question mark.  Lord have mercy.  Unless Kenny's fetching Andre 
Miller (ha!) or the like, this makes me feel like hurling.)

As for the big men, they have promise, as does everybody who comes in to 
the league, or who is looking to get out from under a lack of playing time 
with another team -- Sundov may be poised for a breakout year -- or he 
might be the next Zan Tabak.  I guess we'll see.

Re-sign Rodney Rogers.  That's what it's all about.  If not, the trade 
becomes "Joe Johnson +  pick" for "Tony Delk", essentially.  But, what the 
hell does that matter?  Very, very little -- only it's effect on the 
actual outcome of the team's performance.  So what it's really about is 
just that: the performance.  Don't know about that until they play.  But, 
if we're talking expectation, I think Rogers and Delk add a lot more than 
just Delk, at this point, and none of the replacements tossed around 
(Croshere, Songaila, DD, more?) have proven anything, with the exception 
of Croshere, and *his* acquisition is only the stuff of hearsay and 
extrapolation.

Bird