re: Baker and future

[Kim Malo <kimmalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 11:51 PM 7/24/02 -0700, bird wrote:
> 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:
>
> 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.
No, and in fairness have enough hoops sense to understand how much this 
weak spot on the team hurt them and the benefits they should see from 
having an actual inside game. Walker especially IMO. Someone a day or so 
ago brought up a point that probably doesn't get enough attention about 
that, BTW, when looking at the difference Vinnie makes over VP or RR. 
Hands. Vinnie for all his possible faults does have good, soft hands that 
can actually catch a pass, particularly a less than perfect one. It was a 
major problem with VP and to an admittedly lesser degree RR. They could be 
in the paint, you could pass to them, but it was far from automatic they 
would catch the pass well enough to control it and do something good with 
it. With VP, doing that much was actually a pleasant surprise.

If nothing else, I think just the fact that they were consulted probably 
will help them accept the situation and ease chemistry adjustments, even if 
they do have reservations. It's good management psychology, saying that 
this is a partnership not a master/flunky relationship (whether or not that 
is really true).


> 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.
I agree with this except for one small detail. Vinnie's contract doesn't 
expire before both halves of walkerpierce. Walker's expires a year ahead of 
Vinnie's. http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/boston.htm


> 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.
Absolutely.

> 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.
FWIW, I wouldn't go that far as I'm pretty sure he's some strong 
competative instincts. I just think it's not as high on his priority list 
as the other stuff.

Kim