consideration in tranquilty / Wallace questions

["Josh Ozersky" <jozersky1@xxxxxxxxxx>]

First of all, I'm going to call CW tomorrow and see
what I can find out about this move.  Here's what
I'm going to ask.  If you have any suggestions, let
me know.

1.  Aren't you scared of Baker's contract, and what
constraints that will put on you?

2.  What is you best-case scenario vision of how
Baker will fit in on this team?

3.  My sources tell me that the coaching staff was
not completely enthusiastic about this deal.  Can
you comment on that?

4.  Some people are saying that this deal was a panic
move, orchestrated at the last minute to do something
to replace the imminent loss of Rodney Rogers.  Why
did this happen so fast?

5.  Rogers, thoughout his career, has needed the ball a
lot to be successful.  Will he get the ball a lot, and how
will that effect the chemistry of the team?


Those are the basic questions I'm planning to ask.  I doubt
Wallace will give me a lot of time on this.

Anyway, that having been said, I've been thinking about this
trade a lot, and have read some stupendously intelligent,
thoughtful posts about it, ranging from guarded (Alex Wang)
to gleeful (Chris Hafner) to profoundly nihilistic (Bob McChesney)
to horror-struck (Bill Simmons.)  Oddly, I haven't really had a
strongly emotional reaction about this trade one way or the
other.  I hope it works out, and think there is a tremendous
possible upside to it, but the downside doesn't worry me so
much.  Why?

1)  I don't really worry about the players we moved.  It's no
exaggeration to say that the player I most resented losing
was Joe Forte.  Kenny's exit has been a dream of mine
for some time, and Vitaly is essentially just a goon with
a jump shot, when all is said and done.  Forte was a legit
talent, but he was never going to be a good defender.

Now, I know, we could have gotten more for Kenny and Vitaly
than Baker.  But it's not like teams were knocking our door
down with offers.  And who knows?  If Baker works out at all,
we might be improved.  Certainly we're in a position to get
a good point guard at some point in time.

2)  If the truth be told, I don't really think Rogers was that im-
portant to the Celtics' success.  He did help, but basically
he was just a good jump shooter who could play some physical
defense when called upon.  He didn't rebound at all.  And even
his shot didn't really come through when we needed it most:
Rogers missed or passed up a lot of big shots in the playoffs,
and it still wouldn't have mattered if we had had a point guard
who could hit an open twelve-footer.  Or if Paul and Antoine had
gotten a few calls.  I wish I had Joe Johnson back, but that's
another story.

3)  Vin Baker isn't really that bad.  He's a legit post threat,
after all.  Personally, I don't know how the Celtics two-pronged,
perimeter-oriented offense would function when complemented
by a ponderous, back-to-the-basket scorer like Baker.  Of course,
if Baker turns out to be a dud, we won't have to worry, but somehow
I don't see that happening.

Josh