Fw: Baker/Anderson Trade - Cross-Group Conversation (VERY LONG)

["Josh Ozersky" <jozersky1@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Superb post on Vin Baker and the Celtics.  A must-read.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Hafner" <hafner@peoplepc.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.sports.basketball.nba.seattle-sonics,alt.sports.basketball.nba.boston-ce
ltics
Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2002 10:46 PM
Subject: Baker/Anderson Trade - Cross-Group Conversation (VERY LONG)


> I thought it might be worthwhile for both Sonics and Celtic fans to
> get some perspective from the other side on the rumored Vin
> Baker/Kenny Anderson/etc. trade - hence the cross-post. It wasn't done
> to incite a flame war.
>
> Here are my thoughts on the trade, for what they're worth. Sorry this
> is so long - there's a lot to discuss.
>
> THE TRADE AS RUMORED:
> Celtics recieve Vin Baker and possibly Shammond Williams or Earl
> Watson
> Sonics receive Kenny Anderson, Vitaly Potapenko or Eric Williams, and
> possibly Joe Forte
>
> WHAT THE CELTICS GET:
> Vin Baker is obviously the biggest piece of the puzzle here. Sonics
> management has been looking to move him out of town for the last few
> summers; he's been looking to get back to the East Coast to revitalize
> his career, and the Celtics would seem to need an inside scoring
> presence to complement their outside offense.
>
> The key is, just how good is Vin Baker? How much does he have left in
> the tank? Where's his head at? Welcome to the Vin Baker watch, Celtics
> fans. Sonics fans are old veterans at this game.
>
> The quick and dirty history:
> Vin came to Seattle in time for the 97/98 season in the Shawn Kemp
> trade and had a great year - 19.2 PPG, 8.0 rebounds on a stacked team
> that featured a lot of other scoring options. Unlike Kemp, he had a
> strong repertoire of low-post moves, a great attitude, and he hit a
> memorable game-winning shot against the Jordan Bulls that made him an
> immediate fan favorite.
>
> The came the lockout. He put on weight, ostensibly at the request of
> Sonics management so that he could play center more often. He lost
> quickness, he lost confidence, George Karl left, and the roster got
> turned over. Until this past year he pouted, underachieved and looked
> confused on the court. As part of the process, he became the scapegoat
> from Soncis fans spoiled by success for the mediocre Sonics teams in
> the late 1990s.
>
> This past year, Baker forged a strong relationship with Sonics owner
> Howard Schultz, came into camp in better shape, and expressed a
> willingness to play whatever role coach Nate McMillan wanted. He came
> out of the gates relatively strong, but he got hurt and the Sonics
> started a winning streak. He was, in effect, out of a role when he was
> able to return and had to try to meld into a quick-paced, run-and-gun
> system. He was generally unsuccessful but was at times very impressive
> against the Spurs in Round 1 of the playoffs.
>
> So what would the Celtics be getting? It's hard to say. Offensively,
> Baker still has gifts. In a league where low-post offense and
> around-the-rim touch is a bit of a lost art, he's still got the
> ability to make it work. I appreciate a good low-post game, and when
> Vin's got it going, he's a pleasure to watch. Being in better shape
> this year gave him the quickness needed to get his shots off near the
> basket. He's got the fundamentals and the feel to be a dangerous
> scorer on the blocks, and generally he demands a double team near the
> basket. Historically he's had a face-up J that has helped get him into
> his offense, but from what I've seen it's not all that effective as a
> primary weapon.
>
> Unfortunately, to get Vin really jump-started in all facets of the
> game, you have to make him a focal point of the offense. In the Sonics
> 3-2 loss against San Antonio in Round 1 this year, Vin was truly
> remarkable at times in his ability to score against Tim Duncan and the
> rest of the San Antonio offense. However, that came at the expense of
> the Sonics' slashing, gunning offense - which ground to a halt.
>
> Baker's defense and rebounding improve markedly when he gets the ball
> a lot. When he doesn't get the ball, he seems to lose interest and
> goes through the motions a lot more. That's especially true in a
> system that doesn't play to his strengths. He's a better defender on
> his man than he's sometimes given credit for, especially against the
> top guys when he's really motivated. He's not known as a shot-blocker,
> but he has the ability to alter shots when he's really throwing
> himself around.
>
> However, his lack of lateral quickness tends to make him a liability
> in the overall defensive scheme, especially in a trapping, scrambling
> defense as the Sonics used under Karl, the Celtics ran under Pitino,
> or even the variants that McMillan runs with the current Sonics teams.
> When Patrick Ewing was with the Sonics, the coaching staff were forced
> to minimize the amount of time Ewing and Baker spent on the court
> together because of their lack of foot speed.
>
> Those limitations might be papered over a bit in the Celtics' zone-ish
> scheme, though Baker will probably will never be known as a
> defense/rebounding banger type.
>
> Baker's biggest problem is his head. Whether because of clinical
> depression or rumored alcohol abuse (some time ago), his pouting when
> he doesn't get the ball or is demoted from the starting lineup is what
> really grates on Sonics fans. He didn't get along with Paul Westphal,
> who tried to use their shared Christian beliefs to motivate Baker, but
> under McMillan Baker has at least seemed to try to fit the Sonics'
> area of needs.
>
> Baker has continually insisted that all he needs is a change of
> scenery back to the East Coast to get his game back to where it needs
> to be. Since so many of his problems seem to be mental, perhaps that's
> true.
>
> I believe that if a team fed him the ball as the No. 1 scoring option,
> or even perhaps as the No. 2, in a system that meshed well with his
> game, he could score 20+ PPG and haul in 9 or 10 rebounds per game.
> However, that would probably hurt the system and might come to the
> detriment of his teammates. With a truly revitalized attitude, though,
> who knows what he could do or what he'd be willing to sacrifice? He
> definitely has the abilities. After all, if he was a worthless player,
> he wouldn't frustrate Sonics fans so much.
>
> Personally, in that way, I'd say he's reminiscent of Adrian Dantley.
> You know you can get offense from him down in the post - the questions
> involve what that'll do to the offense, how well he'll perform without
> the ball, the effect on team defense, and his attitude. The difference
> here is that he's not an active malcontent like Dantley was as much as
> a passive malcontent - if you catch my meaning. The guy can put the
> ball in the hoop, but at what cost?
>
> Honestly, although he drives me nuts, I root the guy. He's
> fundamentally a nice guy, I think, who has throwback offensive skills,
> and he has the potential to fill a big hole for a lot of teams. I wish
> him luck wherever he goes, especially if it's to the Celtics.
>
> I do question how he'd fit in. In theory, a low-post offensive player
> is the missing piece to the Celtics puzzle, but you could've said the
> same about Anthony Mason in Milwaukee. The fact is, both the Sonics
> and the Celtics rely on outside shooting and small-player type skills
> to compensate for a lack of a dominant inside presence (Antoine Walker
> plays more like a SF than a PF, in my mind). The fact that the Sonics
> do so despite already having Baker would have to raise flags for the
> Celtics, although I'd say that has a lot to do with Nate McMillan's
> preference for guard play).
>
> Antoine Walker and Paul Pierce are used to taking the vast majority of
> the Celtics' shots; how happy will they be giving Vin Baker the nearly
> 15-20 shots per game he'll want? Plus, it's not like Vin just gets the
> ball and shoots it. Generally he works for awhile to get the shot.
> That might interrupt the flow of the offense.
>
> Also, Jim O'Brien seems to put such a huge emphasis on the three-point
> shot - did I seriously see a quote from him concerning the Bruno
> Sundov signing saying they liked his ability to shoot the 3? Will he
> be comfortable working Vin's style of offense into the system?
>
> I also question how much a change of scenery will alter things -
> especially if Vin is the No. 3 option on offense. Generally people who
> say they need a change of scenery to improve their performance enjoy a
> short honeymoon period, and then just find new things to moan about.
> If this happens, the Celtics ng would look much like the Sonics ng
> over the last few pre-seasons - "If Vin finally gets his head
> together, we could be pretty good ...."
>
> Plus, who's going to distribute the ball? The situation would seem to
> cry out for a veteran point guard who can run the offense, distribute
> shots, and keep the team on the same page. I suppose either Shammond
> Williams, Earl Watson or R.J. Bremer would be the Celtics' No. 1 point
> guard if the trade goes down (I saw a quote somewhere that said the
> Celtics are souring on Omar Cook). While each of those guys brings
> something to the table, they don't have the kind of experience or
> clout to give the ball to the right guy at the right time and make the
> other guys live with it - not necessarily the guy who's yelling for it
> at that point in time.
>
> If this trade does happen, it'd be interesting to see how the Celtics
> set the lineup. I suppose the starting lineup could look something
> like this:
> C: Battie
> PF: Baker
> SF: Walker
> SG: Pierce
> PG: Bremer/Williams/Watson
>
> However, I'm not convinced that Walker or Pierce have the quickness to
> keep up with the top 3s or 2s in the league, respectively. Combine
> that with Baker's lack of lateral quickness, Battie's lack of heft,
> the inexperience at the 1, and the absence of a dominant shot-blocker,
> and you're asking the C's zone-ish defense to cover up for an awful
> lot. So, you could go with:
>
> C: Baker
> PF: Walker
> SF: Pierce
> SG: Kedrick Brown/Tony Delk/Erick Strickland (if re-signed)
> PG: Bremer/Williams/Watson
>
> In Seattle, however, we've found that playing Vin at center is a
> losing proposition. He's not really big enough to bang with the
> biggest centers, and he's far more effective when he's leaner.
> Overall, he's a far better fit at PF, although that may be a bit
> different in the East.
>
> One major point about Vin, though, is that if you're expecting him to
> provide intimidating defense, rebounding and toughness at the center
> position (or even at PF), you're expecting something he just can't
> give. It's like expecting Glen Rice to be a point forward, Jason Kidd
> to be a consistent three-point threat, or Allen Iverson to be a team
> leader. They're all good players (or were, in Rice's case), but that's
> just not what they do. Vin's a scorer.
>
> Plus, moving Battie out of the starting lineup would seem like a
> mistake. I haven't seen a lot of him, but what I have seen was
> impressive - good hustle, nice baseline J to keep the defense honest.
> He's come a long way since the "El Busto" days, and in the East, he's
> not horribly undersized in the pivot. Moving him to the bench could
> send the wrong message.
>
> All this is to say nothing of Baker's monster contract or the Celtics'
> overall strategy. To start out with four first-round picks, parlay two
> of them into Rodney Rogers, decide not to sign Rogers, and then turn
> around and deal another one of them (Forte) for Vin Baker, that seems
> kind of an odd plan for the future. Baker's capable of being much
> better than Rogers, but Rogers was around for the Celtics' playoff
> run, would come cheaper, and would seem to fit that system better. Of
> course, his salary would come _on top_ of Anderson's, not instead of
> it.
>
> One other factor - Vin's not really _that_ old. He's only 30 (though
> he'll be 31 for most of next season), and for a big man, that's not
> really too bad. Rogers is older, for example (already 31). Admittedly,
> Baker isn't on a Karl Malone-like workout regime, but at the end of
> his contract he'll be 34 or 35. If he's revitalized, that won't be too
> bad. That'll also give Walker and Pierce four more years in their
> prime, by which time they'll be 30 and 29, respectively. And if
> Baker's not revitalized, it won't matter how old he is anyway.
>
> As for the other guys rumored to be in the deal, I'd be horrified if
> the Sonics include Earl Watson instead of Shammond Williams (though
> Watson might not be the Sonics' to deal if they don't match the
> Grizzlies' offer sheet).
>
> While Williams was impressive in the Sonics' playoff series against
> the Jazz and the subsequent summer league, he's worked his way out of
> the rotation. As a quick little guy who can create and hit his own
> shot, he's terrific. However, the reason his scoring in the playoffs
> didn't translate into a permanent spot in the rotation is that he
> annoyed Gary Payton by over-controlling the ball. That, and Williams'
> propensity for turnovers, defensive lapses and an inability to learn
> how to run an offense, would make him seem like exactly the wrong guy
> to play point guard on a Pierce-Walker-Baker team. He's electric at
> times, though, and he can hit the three, so perhaps he's O'Brien's
> kind of guy.
>
> Watson, meanwhile, reminds me a lot of Eric Snow - and not just
> because they're both Sonics second-round picks. Watson is heady,
> hard-nosed and smooth, and he doesn't need to take a lot of shots to
> be happy. I'm not sure he's ready to step in and be a starting point
> guard for a winning team, but I think he'll be capable of doing so in
> a few years.
>
> WHAT THE SONICS GET:
> Well, Kenny Anderson, for one thing. But nothing about this trade from
> the Sonics' point of view would seem to be about immediate success on
> the basketball court.
>
> What does Anderson add? Nothing about his history suggests he'd be
> overly happy about playing the 5-10 minutes behind Gary Payton at PG.
> Playing him there instead of Watson, for example, would seem to be a
> short-sighted move that would only generate resentment in the locker
> room.
>
> Conceivably, Anderson could handle the point while Gary slides over to
> the shooting guard spot. However, Gary needs the ball to be both happy
> and effective - hence his reluctance to play with Shammond Williams.
> If Gary's handling the ball, Anderson's usefulness fades down to
> almost nothing. He's not exactly a spot-up shooter, nor can I imagine
> him running off screens or doing a lot of moving without the ball.
> Brent Barry handles the opposite-Gary guard role better than anybody,
> I think - certainly far better than Anderson would. Especially if,
> after putting together a good year to answer some of his doubters,
> Anderson was rewarded by being shipped across the country to be a
> backup.
>
> Adding Anderson would only add to the backcourt glut on the Sonics
> roster. While Anderson would replace one or both of Williams and
> Watson, he's a veteran and has come to expect minutes and shots.
> Playing Anderson and Payton together in the backcourt would take
> minutes away from Barry and/or Desmond Mason, both of whom are capable
> and deserving of a significant role. Playing Mason at SF would put the
> cramp on Rashard Lewis and/or Vladimir Radmanovic, at least one of
> whom would need to spend significant minutes out of position at PF to
> create room for Mason.
>
> Plus, while I was impressed by Anderson's play in the Celtics-Detroit
> series and in general this year, showing a maturity and distribution
> skills I didn't think he had, he still shot from a low percentage and
> is showing his age. It's hard to believe he's two years younger than
> Gary.
>
> I would love Celtic fans' opinions on this. How has Anderson's
> attitude been in taking a back seat to Pierce and Walker? How do you
> think he would accept a minimal role with the Sonics?
>
> I touched on this before, but the trade would leave open a glaring
> hole at the power forward spot, where what Vin _did_ sporadically
> contribute is sometimes overlooked. Who are the Sonics going to start
> there? Pedrag Drobnjak? I suppose Calvin Booth could play there
> alongside Jerome James, but it's not as if Nate McMillan has shown a
> propensity toward big lineups. Besides, both of those guys will have
> at least a few question marks on Nov. 1. I'm not sure how comfortable
> I'd be with Drobnjak starting at the 4. Olumide Oyedeji was just
> signed away by the Magic, and Potapenko, who I don't think will ever
> play a major role on the Sonics, will be injured until mid-season.
> Besides, he's a plodding center-type anyway.
>
> I'm really afraid that Nate will move Lewis or Radmanovic into the PF
> slot full time. Even if we manage to re-sign Lewis, I think playing at
> PF on a consistent basis wrecks his game. He's not big enough, and he
> shoots from outside too much to be effective on the boards at the 4
> anyway (sound familiar, Celtic fans?). I'd much rather have a near-All
> Star 3 in Lewis than a relentlessly mediocre 4.
>
> Radmanovic has the height to play PF and the talent to be a Detlef
> Schrempf-type SF/PF, but I don't think he has the body or the
> experience yet. Ansu Sesay isn't the answer, either.
>
> Admittedly, the Sonics did well last year when Vin was out by going
> small. But I'm not sure they'd be able to hold the PF position
> together with gum and bailing wire over an 82-game schedule plus
> playoffs (hopefully).
>
> Adding either Eric Williams or Joe Forte (I'd prefer Forte) would
> further crunch the backcourt minutes and do nothing to help the
> frontcourt. I suppose Williams could play the Randy Livingston role
> (which I never truly understood the need for anyway, aside from
> perhaps injuries) with defense and some clutch shooting. I'd really
> like to see what Forte is capable of, but behind Payton/Anderson and
> Barry/Mason, I don't see how he'd get any time.
>
> That's another thing I'd love to hear about from Celtics fans. What's
> the word on Forte? I was impressed by him at UNC, and the summer
> league reports have him showing off a good mid-range game. Are the
> stories about him being a locker room problem based in reality?
>
> Silly me, though, for discussing the baksetball ramifactions of the
> move. The real beauty of the trade from the Sonics' perspective lies
> in the salary situation. With the loss of Baker's max deal and
> Anderson's contract coming off the cap at the end of the year, the
> Sonics could be set for a run at the bunch of quality free agents next
> summer. Williams and/or Potapenko, who run for one and two more years,
> respectively IIRC, could each conceivably be waived. Then, I believe,
> if another team picks them up, the Sonics lose the amount of their new
> contract off their cap number..
>
> Gary Payton, of course, will be one of those 2003 free agents if the
> Sonics don't extend him. That makes me wonder a bit if a Baker trade
> wouldn't be a preview for a Payton trade that would address the PF
> hole or bring in young talent still paid on the rookie scale. After
> all, this trade would IMO make the Sonics less competitive this coming
> season and would basically waste one of Gary's precious remaining
> competitive years. Additionally, the Sonics have shown no sign of
> extending Payton's contract. Theoretically, they could let him walk at
> the end of 2003 and wind up with even more cap room than if they
> traded him for somebody, but that wouldn't seem to leave a situation
> that would attract many top free agents.
>
> Personally, I'd still rather hold onto Gary. But at this point, it
> wouldn't stun me if a Payton trade followed a Baker trade. Especially
> since Kenny Anderson wouldn't play a significant role at all unless
> Payton leaves. However, adding some young talent through a Payton
> trade and then angling to land a free agent in 2003 could leave the
> Sonics in a very competitive position if all goes well.
>
> And then, of course, you have to factor in the Rashard Lewis
> negotiations, which adds a whole different layer of complexity to the
> Sonics' off-season plans.
>
> Anyway, this post is already more than too long. My apologies, but
> feel free to add something or rip into what I've said. If this trade
> goes down, it could have a huge, huge impact on both teams, and I'm
> excited to see what happens.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris Hafner