Re: I don't mind being the first on the Vin bandwagon

[CeltsSteve@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 7/22/02 10:48:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
Celtic4Hire@aol.com writes:




Just like I told you so when I said the JJ for Rogers deal was a good deal 
for the short term > 
> and bad for the longterm. I think it was just me and Celtsteve who felt 
> this way. 
> 
> Not to put words in Celtsteve's keyboard, but I think it is just him and me 
> again liking this trade. 
> 
> Sure I'd like the C's to trade Kenny for Shaq but it ain't gonna happen. 
> Sure I'd like the C's to trade Kenny for Candiman but it ain't going to 
> happen. Vin is available. His contract is a risk. But on the talent side, 
> Viola. I love the "cancer" comments, just like when we traded for DJ. Their 
> are other similarities of the trade for Walton. 
> 
> I don't like trading young, blooming talent for one shot deals like the 
> Rogers deal. However, I love trading bums for former All-stars, especially 
> those that can play inside. A play who can draw fouls on centers and 
> forwards which will open up Pierce's game to slash. One who will demand a 
> double team that will open up the three point shooters. Why do those Laker 
> and Spur scrubs shoot those 3s so well? It is because everyone is so 
> focused on the inside game of Shaq and Duncan that they are standing wide 
> open at the line focusing in for an eternity. (Vin, of course, isn't in 
> their class but has the same kind of game.) 
> 
> Of course, Vin could show up being fatter than pig and I could be wrong. 
> But I prefer the team GO FOR IT AND TAKE THE RISK rather than living in 
> mediocority and luxury tax hell. If the cup is half full, we are the 
> Eastern Conference champions... 
> 
> DJessen33 



DJ,

I had mixed emotions when the rumors first started to swirl. Now that it's a 
done deal, I'm much more on board with it. There is obviously a high risk 
involved but there is also the opportunity for a high reward. 

The C's were able to eek out 49 wins last season relying on the long ball. 
Many argued that it was a "flawed" strategy. I argued that flawed it may be 
but given the C's personnel and roster makeup, it was a strategy that gave 
them the best chance to win. 

I was talking to TomClash today from the old AOL board and he made a poignant 
comment: 

"Wallace saw what happened in the Nets series - no post up play at all so the 
Nets could play all the perimeter D they wanted without having to worry much 
about getting burned inside."

That nails it pure and simple on why this trade was made. The C's went as far 
as they could with the long ball approach and if as an organization they are 
truly "Championship Driven", this deal or something very close to it was an 
absolute necessity to try to get to the next level. 

There is still the question of who will be the PG. I wouldn't mind seeing 
Team Wallace trying to turn around and deal Shammond Williams within the 
league's 48 hrs allowed timeframe - with his one year remaining - to Chicago 
in a sign and trade for Travis Best and bring him back home as well. He fits 
O'Brien's job description of a PG that can shoot the long ball and he's a 
decent defender despite his short stature. I'd feel much more comfortable 
with him running the controls than Shammond or Delk or Bremer. If that's not 
doable or realistic, then I'd take a flyer on Jeff McInnis for one year.

But make no mistake about it, the C's now have their Y2K2 version of the Big 
Three. There should be a great deal of excitement and anticipation in that 
the C's now have a legit chance to make the Finals for the first time in 16 
years and as a long suffering fan it's been a long time coming. In fact, far 
too long coming. 

However, to read these boards, the fan reaction to the deal is more like that 
of a wake. We've collectively survived the Jimmy Rogers' era, the Chris Ford 
era, the ML era, and the Pitino era.  If none of those didn't sour any of us 
then I don't think the risk of taking on Baker's max deal should, either. In 
short, it was a risk worth taking. No guts, no glory.

And kudos to Gaston. He obviously signed off on the deal knowing full well 
that the C's could yet end up on the wrong end of the luxury tax this time 
next summer when the league books are counted again. But he OK'd it anyway. 
He's been lambasted and portrayed as only being a businessman that knows 
nothing about the game and cares nothing about the game. That may or may not 
be accurate but he showed that as a businessman, he is willing to spend $$ if 
it improves his team. This trade does exactly that. This wasn't a trade that 
was made for the future. It was made for the here and now while Pierce and 
Walker 
are still locked down contractually and both are entering their primes.

Baker doesn't even need to regain his All Star form from the Milwaukee days. 
If he comes in and is a 15/10 guy and shoots close to 50%, I just don't see 
another team in the East that can beat the C's in a seven game series now. I 
really don't. 

CeltsSteve 

"Life Is a Bowl of Gumbo. Live Well, Laugh Often, Love Much!"