The trade, revisited

[Bob McChesney <rwmcches@uiuc.edu>]

Allow me to restate my belief that the Delk-Rogers trade still makes no 
sense. This is not simply an scholastic debate, it goes directly to what 
strategy the Cs pursue in the coming offseason and 2002-03 season. It is 
true that the Cs, if everything breaks right, might make it to the NBA 
finals. It is also true that the Cs could be bounced in round one in three 
straight games. And it is definitely true that the Cs cannot possibly win 
the NBA championship this year unless there is a huge fluke, of an 
unprecedented type. In my view, that means the deal is dubious, since we 
gave away Joe Johnson and a no. 1 pick. This deal, then, takes us further 
from an eventual flag than gets us closer.

It is true the team has played well at times since the trade, by the team 
played well at times before the trade, too.

So let's take a sober look at the deal, beyond all the hoopla and Boston 
sports media propaganda. Let's get beyond the enthusiasm that the Cs are 
actually going to make the playoffs for the first time in seven seasons. 
Has it really improved the team so much?

With regard to Tony Delk, I think the answer is probably not. He has 
swallowed up the minutes that went to Strickland and Kedrick Brown, but has 
he been all that much better? I don't think so. He has been a 
disappointment. I was expecting someone who would be an offensive 
juggernaut, capable of throwing up 20 points every few games. He has not 
looked anywhere near that good. And he is undersized at the 2. Plus I think 
he is taking valuable time away from Kedrick Brown. He is not a starting 
caliber 2, really. He is a sixth man type, who should be on the bench when 
his shot isn't falling.

Rogers is another matter. He has a very solid offensive game, and he plays 
decent defense. The problem with Rogers is that, like Delk, he is short. It 
also hurts that he is a very poor rebounder for a 4. When he is on the 
floor with Walker at the 4 and 5, the team has truly weak rebounding. 
Philadelphia just killed us on the boards Friday, for example. The offense 
has to be running and really sizzle or else the Cs get killed.

So Delk is a mixed blessing, at best. By trading for him we will lose 
Strickland, who is not far from Delk in my view, to free agency and we will 
have much less time for Kedrick Brown. The only hope at this point the Cs 
have to ever compete with the top echelon of NBA teams is for Kedrick Brown 
to develop into a star. He can't do that on the bench.

Rogers is a free agent. I doubt there will be a huge demand for his 
services. His weaknesses make him a 6th man type more than  a starter, and, 
as Wallace, has stated, there are going to be a lot of serviceable free 
agents out there this off-season. We might have been able to sign him 
without trading for him.

But, then again, why exactly would we want to sign Rogers? He will be 31 
next season. But he does nothing to address the Cs biggest weakness: 
interior defense and rebounding. If we sign him we must play him. It seems 
like it is a strategy that might make us a marginally better team, but it 
leaves us still outside the elite teams, and with fewer resources to 
compete with them.

I think the verdict is becoming more and more clear: this was an idiotic 
trade, if the goal is to eventually win another NBA title. Delk and Rogers 
are journeymen -- guys who are best suited to being 6th and 7th men -- who 
cannot put the Cs over the top, and will be out of the league in three or 
four years. Joe Johnson will then be 24 years old and entering his prime. 
As for the no. 1 pick we traded, who knows? The chances are the pick will 
not pan out, but so what? There is also the chance that we can come up with 
a stud. It is one of the few opportunities the Cs get to upgrade their 
talent level and the Cs gave it away for no apparent reason. We are 
supposed to celebrate that the Cs will not have to pay the salary of a 
rookie because we traded the pick, but isn't that pathetic? I mean the 
salary is paltry by NBA standards.

Bottom line: the Cs could have -- or should have -- gotten Delk and Rogers 
for a lot less. And if they were obsessed with trading Joe Johnson, they 
should have gotten a lot more. Like a 2003 no. 1 pick. That is already 
shaping up as the best draft in memory. I sure hope Wallace doesn't trade 
away our pick(s) in that draft for more Delks and Rogers. But that is the 
logical path we are on, since the future is now. Fortunately for Wallace, 
ThanksDad is such an idiot, that he will be content with playoff 
appearances for the time being.

Don't get me wrong, those of you who assume that any criticism of this 
trade means I am a secret Lakers fan. I bleed green. I would love nothing 
more than to write a message saying I was stupid not to love this trade. I 
hope the Cs win ten consecutive titles beginning this year. I root for them 
in every game like a maniac. But being a Cs fan is about flags, not playoff 
appearances. We aren't the Cleveland Cavaliers or the Indiana Pacers. It 
isn't that hard to make the playoffs if you are willing to trade away 
lottery picks and stud young talents. But it is impossible to win flags if 
you sacrifice your future for a mediocre present.