Baker and future

["James A. Hill" <jahill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think getting Baker was a very good move for the Celtics for a number of
reasons.

(I hated the Rogers trade because I thought we should have gotten more back
and liked JJ's game.  But Delk is OB's guy so that had a lot to this trade
I'm sure.)  (As some have suggested I doubt the trade was done in a vacuum.
More then one team was contacted before the trigger was pulled.   I still
don't like it though.)

1. The Celtics needed a low post guy to compete.  Battie made good strides
last year but will never have the size/strength of Baker.

2. We needed a center with decent hands.  How many times did the pass go
inside and then out of bounds?  How many times did Walker get stuffed
because he drew the opponents teams center.

3. We needed an inside guy who can actually draw a defender.  Baker will do
that.  This means one of the other four guys will be open if Pierce or
Walker are doubled.  It also means that Pierce can't be tripled anymore
without leaving two guys open.

4. We needed to trade Anderson before his contract expired for "one" player
who we could trade as an expiring contract, if we needed to, for another big
contract guy while Pierce and Walker are still in their prime.

Since FA's are not lining up to play for us or with our Captains, this gives
us the best of both worlds.

We get a guy who has proven that he can play in the past (4 time All Star,
Olympic team).  Who WANTS to play here for his childhood dream team in front
of family and friends.  (I'll bet you this guy has dreams of having his
number retired in those rafters he looked up into all during his youth. We
couldn't be that lucky could we?)

Both of our Captains gave the trade a thumbs up. So their on board and this
makes it their trade as well.  They will work to make it a positive.

Baker has the potential to be a top center in the east and gives us "some"
chance against Shaq in a best case scenario. Then FA's will want to join the
team to make a run for a ring.

A big plus would be Wallace having to trade our two 1st rounder's next year
and take one better player, as some believe he should have done last year,
or we will have two "potential" guys on the rookie wage scale who will have
playoff experience along with Songaila (maybe).

If this trade doesn't work out:

We have a large expiring contract to trade for someone else while Pierce and
Walker are still in their prime and, hopefully, with three more years of
playoff experience. (The cap will most likely still be in effect in three
years). By then we may have FA's wanting to join a team with a history of
playoff appearances and the potential for a ring.

So where is the down side?  Basketball wise we may be a first round and out
playoff team for two-three years while our captains continue to grow, KB and
Battie improve, Williams and Delk's contracts expire and we develop next
years pick(s).  (It wouldn't hurt Battie to learn the post game from Baker,
regardless.)

The pluses outweigh the minuses if Baker stays healthy and plays as "well"
as he has the last few years.

Like draft picks, this was a trade about potential and preserving contract
space.    I wish we had gotten a future pick from Seattle to put in the bank
but we didn't. Our players will get older and gain experience and Shaq will
get older and more injury prone.  Where Duncan and Kidd end up will be key
for the future as will the growth of Chicago and Indiana.  We have a window
of opportunity that this trade fits in to.

This may also put to rest the "cheapness" of Gaston.  It may not be as big a
risk as some think to management but it certainly wasn't a "cheap" move.

We were not going to the finals with the current cast anyway.  This Bold
move "may" give us a chance to this year.

<Jim