[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Thank you, Boston Sports Guy

At 11:01 AM 7/24/2002, Bob McChesney wrote:

Thanks for the compliment.

Who knows what else we might have gotten for JJ and our no. 1 pick. But we
could he gotten something. At the very least we could have gotten future
no. 1 picks if Wallace determined that the 2002 draft was so bad or that JJ
has no future. We coudl have gotten something.

As it is, all we have to show is Tony Delk, and the price of Delk is that
we lose Strickland, who is cheaper than Delk and close to his equal if not
superior. So we have jack squat to show for two no. 1 picks.
I wrote a post earlier which described the financial aspect of this deal, which
was probably the most important from the owner's point of view. The deal
dumped $3M worth of 2002-2003 salary, which doesn't sound like that much...
but as we are seeing, the Celtics are still close to the luxury tax threshold even
after this dumping. If Wallace hadn't made that trade, do you think Gaston
would have said, "Oh well, I guess I'll just pay the luxury tax and eat $15M in
penalties because my GM didn't have the foresight to avoid it!" Nope. He
would say, "Chris, dump salary right now" and we would see some sort of
even more absurd deal like Kedrick, Joe Johnson, and Forte and our 2002 pick
to the Bulls for a future lottery-protected pick. Because only a team under the
cap would be able to bail us out at that point, and they wouldn't do it just out
of the goodness of their hearts.

Evaluating the Rogers trade in straight basketball terms, ignoring the financial
aspect (i.e. "two first round picks for Delk?") is as incorrect as evaluating the
Baker trade that way (i.e. "ignoring his massive contract..."). Really it was
two first rounders for Delk and avoiding the luxury tax. We've all heard that
Gaston WILL NOT pay the tax and we've seen several #1 picks shipped off as
a result, because these are the easiest contracts to move. Whenever we're
dumping 2002-2003 salary, someone else is picking it up, and reports are that
up to half the teams are already up to the threshold; witness how few teams
are willing to spend their exceptions this year.

Now is this shortsighted on Gaston's part? Quite possibly. But let's be really
clear on what's going on. We lost Rogers because Gaston wasn't willing to pay
a tax. If we hadn't made the trade, we would have been over the threshold
though, and Gaston (or Pond) would not have allowed it to happen.

Alex


Let me put it this way, so maybe you will understand the elementary logic:
Do you think if an NBA GM contacted Pheonix today and said "Hey, Phoenix
GM, Mr. David A. Wickerham says that Joe Johnson and Casey Jacobsen have no
market value. Will you please give their contracts to us?" the Phoenix GM
would say "yes"? No, he would say "F**k off, you wanker."

Look, JJ and Jacobsen many never pan out, but there is the chance they
will. That is why they have value. We torched that value for nothing.