re: Baker and future

[bird <birdwl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: "James A. Hill" <jahill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> I think getting Baker was a very good move for the Celtics for a number of
> reasons.
I am slowly warming to the trade.  Mostly because I have to, but also 
because the people who favor it, and those who have helped explain it, 
have been convincing.  Here are some of the points most convincing to me:

Baker's inside game.  That's something he can do.  Everyone knew the C's 
needed upgrading at big man and at point.  So now the point situation is 
worse -- I'll get back to that -- and, let's face it, Baker is that inside 
big guy.  I liked V''s game, if not his contract.  Guy was a banger and 
rebounder, but the C's gameplan for big men was the UCLA high post.  So be 
it.  Anyway, point being, Baker's game is inside.  Obie knows that.  He 
also knows that's not how he wants to coach, but I'll bet he also knows he'
ll have to take that into account now.  You don't get a Vin Baker and then 
not start him.  (I'm looking at you, Kestas, you old dog.)  Though, I 
agree that expecting that lessens the chance of any disappointment.

Walkerpierce reported to be on board.  Supposedly, they were consulted and 
OK'd it.  Perhaps they saw the writing on the wall; they're not stupid.  
As Joe said, this is all I need to know.  If true, at least they are going 
for broke on this one.

The money, baby.  Here's how I think of this deal:  It *is* a large 
Wallace gamble.  He did the deal knowing these things: Rogers is gone.  
Strick is gone.  The owner spoketh, and he hath said: Thou shalt not pay 
the luxury tax.  The window of opportunity with Walkerpierce equals how 
long they are under contract.  The chances of drafting and keeping a "max 
contract" guy is nil.  Same with signing a free agent max contract.  You 
can, though, trade for one.  One whose contract ends before Walkerpierce's,
 thus giving you the situation down the road where you have an large 
expiring contract and Walkerpierce still under contract, salvaging *some* 
cap flexibility.

Thus, given the constraints the owner has imposed, Wallace makes do.  He 
gambles.  What's his real choice?  His owner will not let him free spend, 
and he is perilously near the luxury tax threshold.  Sure, he has other 
options, but this is a guy who started from his basement.  He takes the 
big risk.


> 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.
This is key, I think.  I sure would like to see a Walker-to-small-forward 
move, and This Could Be The Year (tm).  I won't hold my breath, but it 
would allow for Walker, Battie and Baker to be in the game together.  
Battie is quick, and I've always thought of him as similar in skill set 
and body to a Marcus Camby, a Theo Ratliff: guys best suited to play four 
with a larger pivot.  Anyway, he's more mobile than Baker and can cover 
his bases.  Won't happen, though, as then Sundov and Songaila get larger 
minutes and that won't happen.  I hope Sundov is ready for prime time, but 
Songaila is a rook, and Obie's not going to play him.

And the point situation is bad, as far as the talent we have signed right 
now.  Bremer? Delk?  Shammond Williams?  I still think Delk can fit it 
well (and, now, had better), but as a starting point?  Anyway, the 
situation seems tailor-made for a free agent point looking for playing 
time, because if he's any good at all, he'll get plenty.  Almost any free 
agent PG out there would, at this point.  A guy like Travis Best or Greg 
Anthony gets 35 minutes a game if he wants them.  Now, with the Owner's 
Constraints, this has to be a vet minimum signing or some such, but look 
at the situation: lot's of free agents look to be taking less money.  The 
C's will probably favor money over talent in this case again, though, so I 
expect a second- or third-level PG to be signed.  But, for right now, it 
could be the best guy out there.


> 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.
Yeah, that's pretty much the way of it.  I don't think Joe's right about 
this having to be a "basketball" trade or a "money" trade.  It's about 
both.  It''s about a GM trying to work within the owner's rules.


> 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.
Well, it all depends on what you call "cheap".  This is the problem with 
characterizing people with perjoratives: no one's all of anything.  There'
s is one thing I know about Paul Gaston, though: he will *not*, under any 
circumstances pay the luxury tax.  He simply will not.  He will shell out 
money at times: Pitino's contract, Walkerpierce's, the many salaries 
Pitino just had him give.  But when the tab comes close to the tax 
threshold, he's going to dump salary like it's Enron stock.  He will give 
Baker his contract, because in doing so actually saves money.  When the 
"Big Three (Salaries)" kick in, he will flesh out the roster with 
minimum-types.  I guess I'd call that "cheap", but it hasn't happened yet,
 so that wouldn't be fair.

What is fair, though, is saying Gaston thinks of this as a business.  He 
doesn't really care about winning it all, except in how that would benefit 
the team financially and in public relations.  But, deep in his 
businessman's heart, he only really wants a few things: to remain within 
his budget, take in as much money as possible, and shell out as little as 
possible.  The best way to do this is not to count on the opposing team's 
stars to insure ticket sales, as Donald Sterling has in the past, but by 
fielding a decent team and having a modest amount of success.  More 
success is even better, because that will mean more revenues, but most 
important of all is to minimize expeditures, because only then does more 
and more profit accumulate.


> We were not going to the finals with the current cast anyway.  This Bold
> move "may" give us a chance to this year.
There's no real evidence to support this ubiquitous "we weren't going to 
the finals with this cast" hypothesis.  In past years, it was "we aren't 
going to the playoffs with this cast" and then they did.  And made it to 
the Conference Finals.  There's no way anyone can know what these guys 
were capable of.  I think the roster needed shoring up, though, and, do to 
that, you have to give up "assets".  Or the opportunity to re-sign "assets"
.  Me, I would have re-signed Rogers, taking the hit for a while.  In 
addition to possibly gambling on a Baker or whatever.  But then again, I 
would have seen this year as a really great opportunity to build on last 
year's success.  And more, importantly, if I'm the owner of the Boston 
Celtics, I make sure beforehand that I have enough money to cover a much 
more freespending strategy.

Just a few more things: if Joe thinks he's spamming the list, then I'll 
take another serving.  And isn't it about time for JB to mention some 
point guards who are out there?  Lord knows Wallace needs to pour over the 
point guard free agent list, and not rely on combo guards or CBA-types to 
start at point guard for the Celtics.

The irony is: we *still* need a point guard and another big man.  That's 
pretty funny.  Totally different situation, similar basic needs.  Now, 
though, it's probably a starting point guard and a backup big, whereas it 
probably was the other way around before.

Bird