RE: Baker and future

["Wright, Cecil" <Cecil.Wright@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Most veterans on this list will note that I have remained fairly silent
about this deal for Baker.  Here is my quick "armchair quarterback's view:

We had virtually no lowpost offence at all the past few years.  Baker, if
healthy (mentally & physically) can have a tangible impact in this area.  I
heard a bit of his introductory press conference, and it is obvious he
relishes a return to the Eastern Conference as well as the close proximity
to Old Saybrook, CT.

Baker is a decent, legitimate big man.  He can help us on the court.

My preference is to start Baker, Battie and Walker upfront.

Cecil Wright, Nova Scotia Community Coordinator
National Crime Prevention Centre
Suite 1400 - Duke Tower 
5251 Duke Street
Halifax, NS  B3J 1P3
Tel: (902) 426-5950
Fax: (902) 426-8532
Email: cecil.wright@justice.gc.ca 
Web: www.crime-prevention.org


-----Original Message-----
From: Kim Malo [mailto:kimmalo@mindspring.com]
Sent: July 25, 2002 1:27 PM
To: 'celtics@igtc.com'
Subject: re: Baker and future


At 11:34 AM 7/25/02 -0400, Berry, Mark  S wrote:
>Kim wrote:
>
>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).
>
>--- end ---
>
>Here's my problem with the "Walker and Pierce are on board, so that makes
it
>OK" argument: I'm sure they looked at it like Vitaly and Forte were
useless.
>Kenny was never on either guys' Christmas card list. So they look at it as
>getting rid of three guys they didn't have any strong feelings for, and
>bringing back a big guy. They don't look at the salary. They don't look at
>how it handcuffs the team for four years. They don't look at film of the
guy
>shrinking against competition in the Western Conference.
>
>I'm sure they also feel like Vin will just slide right in as the third
>option and everyone will live happily ever after. They will take their 45
>shots a game and Vin can get the scraps.
>
>There's a reason they're players and not GMs. Remember, Antoine was
lobbying
>to draft Nazr Mohammed at the 10th spot they year Pierce was chosen. He was
>unhappy with the pick and said so. I specifically remember a quote along
the
>lines of "Pierce is a good player, but we need a big guy..."

First, I didn't say that "walker and pierce are on board so that makes it 
OK". I gave reasons they might be OK with it. There are plenty of reasons 
that they might not, starting with the effect on Walker's next and not so 
distant contract renewal and available funds to pay it. He's smart enough 
and that's near and dear enough to his heart that I bet even a 'don't look 
at anything' player might have considered that.

As to the handcuffs, that's been 'round and 'round here before that that 
may be a misleading based upon people's thinking about how unfettered we 
would really be without it. You buy the arguments or you don't. I'm not 
going to rehash them.

As to Walker and Nazr, maybe he's grown up a bit and learned something 
since then. He wasn't wrong about that they needed, even if he undervalued 
Pierce. So did a lot of others. While the list of mistakes like that made 
by every genius GM starting with Red is endless. Two words. Michael Smith.

As to the rest *shrug* Mark, you're committing the same error you're 
complaining about - assuming you know something you don't. The reasons that 
they're now players not GM's are pretty obvious one way, but that doesn't 
automatically mean they didn't look at or understand any of the other 
stuff. You say that you're sure of this and that they don't do that. Maybe 
it's all true, but it's still as much assumption based as the other. 
"There's a reason they're players not GMs" is an easy shot to make, but not 
necessarily relevant as it stands. After all, you're not a GM either, but 
clearly capable of seeing all these issues. You're also not a player. Does 
that make you incapable of seeing the benefits/risks from a player
perspective?

*Sigh* I wish I blindly and unquestioningly loved the deal myself. I guess 
I just hate to only admit to the negative possibilities when there are some 
positive ones and at this point that's all they are anyway - possibilities. 
I hate negativity for the sake of negativity as much as I hate positiveness 
for nothing more than the sake of being positive.

Kim