Re: Beating a Dead Horse

["Lance Jacobson" <lancejacob@xxxxxxxxx>]

Not sure you're following Jim's response, Mike.  He's saying that Sterling
doesn't need Kenny's expiring contract in order to keep his costs down.
He's got young players who now expect to be paid their market value once the
rookie contracts expire, and he'll keep one or none of them, trading them
while they're cheap for draft picks or even younger players plus a little
value.  He loves those picks because he gets talent for cheap money.

Meanwhile, we do the opposite.  We give away picks or first-year players in
order to get mediocre, expensive players, and watch our young guys develop
elsewhere.  Did we get value for Billups?  Mercer?  Moiso? JJ? Forte?  How
about the 22nd pick we gave up this year?  For that money, we took on
Bremer, who didn't make the second round, much less mid-first round.  Stupid
management.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Gooen" <callmebogie@yahoo.com>
To: <celtics@igtc.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 12:58 PM
Subject: Beating a Dead Horse


> Since it's always more fun to focus on trades that might have been than on
> an all-time-record loss.....
>
> Jim Hill wrote:
>
> <<The Clippers are under the cap and don't need the expiring contract.
> Therefore Sterling has no need to trade for Anderson and throw that
> money down the toilet while giving up two potential future all stars for
> nothing.>>
>
> Wasn't suggesting that the Cs could have gotten both players, only one.
> And I don't see what the Clippers' cap situation has to do with anything.
> If you're Donald Sterling, wouldn't you rather pay Kenny Anderson (or
> anyone else) $9 million for one year and get draft picks to whom you can
> pay $1-2 million for four or five years than pay someone like Olowokandi
> or Brand $90 million over 6 years?
>
> Maybe I'm wrong about Sterling's motivations.  Let's see whether
> Olowokandi and Miller get their money.
> HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
> http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/