Fwd: [Celtics' Stuff Can the C's afford to maintain contending status?

[Jim Metz <james.metz@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: JB <JimMetz@mac.com>
> Date: Mon Jun 03, 2002  08:21:35 AM US/Eastern
> To: Celtics Stuff <Celticsstuffgroup@Yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Celtics' Stuff Can the C's afford to maintain contending 
> status?
> Reply-To: Celticsstuffgroup@Yahoogroups.com
>
> 	All of the past, early-season anxieties, about the Celtics, seem 
> to be sitting in my lap, as I write this AM.
> 	We have some money/roster decisions to make and they are back in 
> the hands of Pond/Wallace. This is the pair that refused to fill the 
> 15th roster spot with a capable back up point guard, during the draft, 
> the summer free agent signing, or at Shaws.
> 	All the talk I hear is about money and continuity, not in 
> assessing the teams weaknesses. Excuses before they begin?
> 	Last summer, we could have signed Jaques Vaughn and Gary Trent, 
> for about the same money we paid Palacio and Blount, big upgrades to 
> our rotation, not to mention, that we would not have had to trade Joe 
> Johnson and this year's pick for Rodney Rogers and Tony Delk.
> 	i've always maintained that the best time to  trade draft picks is 
> on the night of the draft. A player very rarely looks better than his 
> pre-draft, hyped up, press clippings. If we didn't want this years 
> pick, we would  have received a lot more for it then, imho.
> 	Our fundamental needs are still the same as they were last summer, 
> only that we've learned to play team defense and the fixing of those 
> problems would seem to insure a greater  degree of success than we 
> could have hoped at that time.
> 	I believe that both Trent and Vaughn are available again. Would 
> you rather sign them or Rogers? If we move quickly and with 
> assuredness, we might get both, for what Rogers alone would cost. With 
> Vaughn on board, we wouldn't have much need  for Strickland, which 
> leaves us a bit more money, perhaps, to go after the other big gap, at 
> center.
> 	We must have a capable big man. It's great to be  able to go with 
> a small, hopefully quick, line-up, but it's equally important, this is  
> basketball you know, to be able to go big at times. I'd love to see 
> Walker, Battie and a force in the middle, on the floor at one time.
> 	Rogers is the first sign. I like his steadiness and skill set, but 
> after all, he is the back up power forward.
> 	We can cross our fingers that Omar Cook is the perfect 
> understudy/replacement for Anderson, but we know that Mark Blount will 
> not allow the team to move Battie to the four. Vitaly has become a 
> question mark, with the knee injury. Rebounding, toughness  and the 
> face up jumper were missed, but again, he's not the answer.
> 	Do we sign Rogers, basicaly tying up all of our off season money, 
> this year, or do we try and get that upgrade at center with Rogers and 
> Blounts money and sign a power forward back-up, like Trent, with 
> Strickland's.
> 	Having said all that, I love Walter, and i presume, so does 
> o'Brien and Walker, so i think and hope he stays, as just a unique 
> player, who can help just enough, to justify a marginal salary.
> 	The other theory afloat, that after next season, we drop 
> Anderson's salary and can go after a big man with more available cash, 
> I never liked to "put off until tommorrow......" We still are unlikely 
> to be under the cap, even if we have budget room, so we would be forced 
> into a sign and trade,(who do we offer?) as none of the top centers 
> would be available for exception money, with several teams trying to be 
> able, to be under the cap, to get them.
> 	
> 		JB
>
> 	
> 			Unchain My Heart!
>        		
<File attached: iPhotoiPhoto-mailtmp-2.jpg>