Re: Untouchables

[Douglas342@xxxxxxx]

    Tough call, but my first reaction is Anderson, with several asterisks.  
In no particular order, asterisk #1 is his physical condition -- can he have 
another year like this year?  Asterisk #2 is similar: I figure he has at most 
three productive years left, so am taking the question as asking about 
untouchables for the 2002-03 team ONLY.  And Asterisk #3, a big, huge 
asterisk, is his role on the team.  I know very little about how he gets 
along with the Big Two, or what sort of locker room presence he is.  If he is 
not a strong, veteran, leadership presence, contributing to strong team 
chemistry off and on the court, then he drops out of consideration for this 
third slot.  In favor of ...?
     I must admit, I like Strickland for his apparent contribution to 
chemistry, etc.  Isn't he as close as we have had in some time to Vinnie 
Johnson?
     Oh hell, I don't know.  Pay me $4,000,000 per year and THEN I'll tell 
you.
 - Doug
      
In a message dated 6/17/02 8:54:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
kimmalo@mindspring.com writes:

> Who are the 3 players on the current Cs that you consider untouchable, not 
> to be traded, only to be traded for fully effective working adult clones of 
> 
> Bird, McHale, and Russ. Something along those lines. And why?
> 
> One or two players would be easy for most, subject to the standard Pierce 
> vs Walker arguments, but 3 players means picking out who's the next most 
> valuable player on the team, in himself or given the other two keepers. And 
> 
> why might be the most interesting question of all.