Re: Forte gone?

["Thomas Murphy" <tfmiii@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Howdy Joe - good point about Red's apparent irrelevance.

I also have to agree with whoever said (Mark?) that this trade makes it
obvious that Wallace's fingerprints were all over some of the doozies from
the Pitino years (Anderson trade, Potapenko trade). Those (as well as the
more recent Delk trade) all share certain similarities: sacrifice draft
picks/newly drafted players in a trade for a veteran with a large contract.
In every case the trade only looked good in the extremely short term, in
this case a little longer than usual - one year.

You are right to state that the luxury tax did not force this trade. Talk
about penny-wise and pound foolish: if the luxury tax is so worrisome (to
the point we can't re-sign Rodney Rogers) then why would management agree so
readily to placing themselves at risk for the following three years!

This is not so important for fans except that from a basketball perspective
it means that Forte is likely not the last draft pick to be sacrificed by
this trade. Our future picks as well as any young cheap player that shows
any promise will probably end up being ditched either in cap jettisoning
trades or simply let go as a FA- two wonderful options: either to be "JJ'ed"
or "RR'ed".

That means our core for the next four years is set and will be: Baker,
Battie, Walker, Pierce, Delk - 3 max contract players and two others with
contracts no one will touch.

Also if/when this trade is consummated it will mark the ultimate test of the
O'B doctrine: look mom, no PG! 3-pointers for all!!

I guess we'll truly get to see if Walker can play PG - whether he likes it
or not since he'll likely be the only one on the floor with (some of) the
skills and the ball. Would have been great to scoop up FA PG Jeff McInnes
cheap (6'4" and 3:1 asst:to ratio) but - oh my! - we can't due to our salary
situation! (Get ready to hear that one over and over as well.)

In sum: the usual from Wallace - an interesting tactical move over the
extremely short term with dire strategic consequences over the long term.
Not the way to stockpile and develop talent around your stars in order to
build a championship team.

PS - I hope I'm wrong.

----- Original Message -----
From: <hironaka@nomade.fr>
To: <tfmiii@worldnet.att.net>
Cc: <celtics@igtc.com>
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: Forte gone?


> ---------- Initial message -----------
>
> From    : owner-celtics@igtc.com
> To      : "Celtic list" <celtics@igtc.com>
> Cc      :
> Date    : Mon, 22 Jul 2002 08:47:18 -0700
> Subject : Forte gone?
>
> Apparently Heinsohn's opinion doesn't count for much
around the C's brass -in this case a bad thing.

Hi Tom:

What's curious about the Forte question is not Heinsohn
but Forte's mentor Red Auerbach, purportedly the
president of the team. You are right, including Forte is
irrelevant to making the trade work.

We all like to complain about Chris Wallace, but you have
to applaud his persuasion skills.

He plainly can convince Gaston into taking a 50 million
contract over at most a 4 million for Rodney Rogers.
That's nothing less than brilliant.

And next he and Papile have to convince Red Auerbach that
Shammond Williams could have been a lottery pick in this
year's draft, just like  Blount (doh!), I mean Omar
(doh!), I mean Sundog... Well, never mind.

Actually, Red is my last hope that Forte won't be thrown
in this deal as a sweetener. It is already so sweet, the
entire city of Seattle is in sugar shock.

I'm hoping for the best outcome, but if the many risks
inherent in this trade become a reality, Chris Wallace
DAMN WELL BETTER NOT blame the luxury tax for forcing his
hand. The lux tax did NOT force him to add 50 million to
the payroll through 2006.

It was a basketball decision. He needs to take
responsibility for it. I don't want to hear a damn word
about the luxury tax during the press conference.

Joe



***



-------------------
L'e-mail gratuit pas comme les autres.
NOMADE.FR, pourquoi chercher ailleurs ?