[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Untouchables



At 12:38 PM 6/17/02 -0400, Douglas342@AOL.com wrote:
    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.
<G> Yeah, when I asked I was thinking that Anderson is probably my choice, but as you point out there are a lot of ifs. I actually give Kenny credit that I think he'll come in in shape again and has accepted the reduced role now that he's gotten a taste of the potential payoff. He gets the money anyway and I think he'd honestly like to win enough to do what it takes, so long as the money's a given. I think the thing on Kenny is that I would trade him if it involved a near replacement or possible upgrade, but don't think we can afford to otherwise because our own offense is so underdeveloped and we don't have a real replacement. Delk's biggest weakness at the point isn't the obvious ones of pure skills so much as lack of court vision. He just doesn't LOOK enough and when he does, he doesn't see what's there. The first you can change, the second I think is more instinct. And I don't want Walker continually playing the point because we're better served otherwise. Strick I love for his toughness, and he actually does see things a bit better than Delk, but the offense still doesn't usually flow as well with him in there. He's the one that I'm afraid is gone that I'm sorry about.

My other thought was Williams, again looking at the multiple role toughness sort of thing. And I suspect he really is a key to the team chemistry. But reading Mr Hill's reply about Battie has me reconsidering some... If only Tony would vow to appear all game long during the regular season like he did in the playoffs. Too many games he'd be visible at key points but disappear too much of the rest of the game.

Kim