Re: Baker and future

["Dan Forant" <dforant1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sounds like dynamite to me. Certainly the best starting front court since
Walker's been here. With Pierce at the 2, who will steer the ship?

DanF

----- Original Message -----
From: "Wright, Cecil" <Cecil.Wright@JUSTICE.GC.CA>
To: <celtics@igtc.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 12:30 PM
Subject: RE: Baker and future


> 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