Re: Beating a Dead Horse

[Cecil <cecil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

As I have said several times in the past..."I swear you do this just to
intentionally piss folks off".

My priorities as for the team to win.  I don't care about the cost because,
as you well know, it ain't my money.  But it is a well documented fact that
Sterling is a tightwad pennypincher whose teams never win and definitely
will not again this year.  So what do I give a hoot about his strategy or
methods?  He can have a roster which costs $.03 for all I care.  What I care
about is that the Celts get flag #17 sometime soon.

But since you mentioned it. I think the fact that you think sucking so badly
that it gets you lottery picks every year is very revealing about you.  You
think that keeps a team interesting?  I want no part of that.  To me, it
shows an ineptitude which I hope we never reach.

Gaston?  Business man just like Sterling.  Decided he was gonna sell the
team, therefore, did not want to enter luxury tax land.  Smart business but
poor for the fans.  Best thing he did/is doing for us, is sell the team to
someone who is willing to spend the capital which will give the fans a good
ROI.

Understand priorities?  What is your priority Lance...other than causing a
ruckus and shitting on Pierce and Tammo?  Seriously, what is your point with
that stuff?  Others tell me that you have mentioned on the other list, that
you want to create problems on this list.  Is that true?  If so, for what
reason?

On another note, I am trying to get tickets for the New Years Eve afternoon
game vs Memphis and possibly the following game vs Portland on Jan. 3.  If
successful, I hope to catch up with Kim, Jim, Adam, Shawn and anyone else
who will be there.

Cecil


----- Original Message -----
From: Lance Jacobson <lancejacob@attbi.com>
To: Cecil <cecil@hfx.eastlink.ca>; <celtics@igtc.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: Beating a Dead Horse


> OK, let's understand priorities.  Gaston hired Pitino and spent more money
> than anyone ever had to build a team.  He got disgusted and refused to pay
a
> top coach, but agreed to extend Walker and Pierce, who he's paid this
year,
> as well as Baker.  Sterling's roster costs him less than half as much,
$26M
> right now, which is a whole different animal.  The Celts are mid-pack
> regarding roster cost whereas the Clips are the bottom.
>
> Point isn't too hard to gather here.  If you insist on paying the very
least
> for your players, you'll keep sucking and keep getting top lottery picks,
> which keeps your team interesting.  Doesn't mean you'll make the playoffs
> eventually, though, but saving $30M in a town where Lakers tickets cost a
> bundle means you'll still sell seats.  It's Sterling's business how he
runs
> the team; I'll assume he's making money.  What do you care if the Clips
suck
> or not?  It's not your club, you don't own jerseys or print them, and it
has
> nothing to do with the idea that we just locked up 4 years over the cap on
a
> guy worth no more than Eric Williams.  Does that give you Celtic Pride,
> Cecil, because we have 3 All-Stars that we're paying the max?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cecil" <cecil@hfx.eastlink.ca>
> To: <celtics@igtc.com>
> Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 3:13 PM
> Subject: Re: Beating a Dead Horse
>
>
> > While Sterling keeps his cost down, his teams generally suck.  Even with
a
> > putrid owner, we made it to the ECFs last year.  When have the Clips
done
> > that?
> >
> > Cecil
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Lance Jacobson <lancejacob@attbi.com>
> > To: Michael Gooen <callmebogie@yahoo.com>; <celtics@igtc.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 2:12 PM
> > Subject: Re: Beating a Dead Horse
> >
> >
> > > 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/