where we stand

["Thomas Murphy" <tfmiii@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

OK I'm going to try and make this a dispassionate analysis of where we
currently stand.

Positives:

What does Baker bring:
- He combines size, scoring and length at the center position.
- He provides a relatively high-percentage option for the offense, one that
does not require extensive changes to integrate into the current offense
(i.e., it will fit well with the current emphasis upon isolations - no
requirement for O'B to install a motion offense).

High-percentage post offense has other benefits:
- Occupies opposing big men, possibly saddling them with fouls. You won't
see them quite so eager to jump out, at or under Paul or Walker if Vin can
get his game going. Less punishment for our two stars and better shot
opportunities.
- Aids the defense. The best way to stop a fast-break is to get the ball
deep in the paint and (hopefully) score it. High-percentage shots shut down
fast breaks far better than lower percentage 3 pointers even if the overall
points add up the same. Also with shot opportunities deep in the paint less
chance for long caroms minimizing the importance of opportunistic rebounders
(those that rely on quickness and instinct to get to a certain spot - like
Kidd). Baker should help considerably against NJ.
- More high-percentage opportunities also has an "opportunity cost"
benefit - by definition it also means fewer low percentage shots. Hopefully
this will translate into a better selection of shots for both Pierce and
Walker. One can hope anyway.

Negatives:

- One big "if": if you thought JJ was soft, wait until you get a look at
Baker. Definite 'tin-man': no heart. All those reasons you love Twon - his
passion, his intensity, his tenacity - are all lacking in Baker. He is the
anti-Twon. This is the guy you want to put all your bets on? Wallace is
placing an enormous burden on Coach O'B to coax Baker into a serviceable big
man. IF O'B can pull it off then I don't care how lousy his Xs and Os are -
he's a motivational genius.

- Second big "if": point guard. I believe Wallace himself said that this was
the larger risk. Remember when Kenny was hurt two years ago? At its worst it
resulted in stagnant offense, endless dribbling, no creation, not even the
ability to get the ball to the right people leading to rushed shots and
fast-breaks for the other team. This could be ugly. At the least we won't
see the level of play that Kenny brought last season for a very long time.
This will place that much more pressure on every other player on the court
both offensively and defensively.

- Third max contract severely contracts flexibility, depth and quality of
surrounding personnel. Even if Vin pans out the team will not be as deep or
resilient as before. This is not only true of next year's edition but will
have a ripple effect for following years as 'pipeline' of incoming talent is
severely constricted. So the trade was not merely about sacrificing Forte or
Anderson - there will be further sacrifices involving (probably) Battie and
as well as the opportunity costs involved in forgoing/not pursuing further
draft choices/mid-level FAs. The players they are lucky enough to land at
the minimum land will very likely leave after one year - just like Rodney
Rogers and Eric Strickland. So much for continuity. And all this places the
team in a VERY precarious position in case of injury. BTW does Vin have a
good history of playing through injury? I don't believe so . . .

- Furthermore the salary crunch gets worse as the years tick by. 2003-04 the
salaries on the books will add up to roughly $53 mil for just 7 players! I
would be surprised if Battie ($4 mil) is not being shopped right now for a
contract that expires at the end of this year (Antonio Daniels - $3.375
mil - at San Antone looks like the best swap out there but we'd have to take
another minimum contract to make the math work). Such a trade would also
require more draft pick to sweeten the deal . . . you get the picture. So
the costs of this deal have not been fully realized and will not be until
the one of the max contracts comes off the books.

To sum up: this is it - this is the last big shot at getting over the hump
for the next several years. Of all the problems with the trade I think the
most telling is the fact that it essentially eliminates any other options
for a good chunk of time to come (the prime of our two stars' careers BTW).
There is nothing wrong with risk-taking. But you want someone to gamble
within their means. If DJ didn't work out we were out Rick Robey - a back-up
center. If Parish didn't work out we still had McHale or vice versa. The
problem with this trade is that if this risk does not pan out (for a
potential variety of reasons: injury, Baker remains a sad-sack, PG never
satisfactorily resolved) there are essentially NO OTHER OPTIONS (indeed,
diminishing options) for several years . . . apart from trading Walker
and/or Pierce. I don't think even Wallace would claim getting Baker is worth
losing either of those two. All the eggs are in one (emotionally fragile)
basket now.

I'll be cheering for the Cs, Baker and Wallace to succeed,  but I'd be lying
if I didn't say that this situation makes me queasy.