Re: Celtics preseason stats to date

["Lance Jacobson" <lancejacob@xxxxxxxxx>]

DJ, it's kind of hard to see the rankings right now, because the Celts are
truly a work in progress this year, and some teams in the East are basically
status quo.  The Nets, for one are NOT going to be much stronger with the 10
pts you get from Rodney Rogers, and we can stick Bruno in his face.  Our
bench can and will outplay theirs.  Right now, the Nets look the most
polished, but I'm sure the Hornets are close.

Orlando will be better, but how much?  I've been ridiculed for saying the
Hawks are much healthier and improved, and they gave the Celts trouble last
season.  Indy will be about the same, and I hope we can sneak Brad Miller
away at the end of the year.  Chicago will look impressive until crunch time
most every night.  Detroit's gone backwards, though Rebraca would help in
the playoffs.  Toronto's not going to beat the Celts more than once in four
regular season games.  The Wizards are a tough call, but I'd rank them just
ahead of the Celts this year, although they've got less to build on.

Assuming the Celts stay healthy, Vin will be a big positive factor as the
season wears on.  He's too important to the team not to be able to do the
"Baker things" he's done in years past on the court.  Worst case, he plays
PF with Wookie or Sundov or Battie at the 5.

The real surprise is SWill.  He's got PG moves.  Too bad he's such a low
percentage scorer inside.  Thought he was going to be a third scoring option
from the perimeter.  He's a penetrator, but not a good playmaker as yet, nor
do I expect that.  Kedrick may be better handling the ball inside and
kicking out to SWill as the season develops.

I'm sticking with the Celts winning 45 games, a dropoff from last year.
Will take a while for Vin to find his niche.
----- Original Message -----
From: <Celtic4Hire@AOL.com>
To: <celtics@igtc.com>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 9:53 PM
Subject: Re: Celtics preseason stats to date


> Mark,
> I have actually agree with a couple of your comments here. I am scaling
back
> my expectations of the Cs this year from  2nd place in the East to fourth
or
> fifth. This is for two reasons. One is the lack of firepower off the
bench.
> We have some guys who have potential (SWill,Kedrick, Sundov) but I haven't
> seen them really click. They also haven't picked up the defensive scheme
yet.
> I also severely disappointed in the difficulty in working in Baker into
the
> offensive scheme. Baker and Walker/Pierce have no idea what the other is
> going to do. Baker gets his man sealed off 20 times but get the ball once
and
> usually way too late. Honestly, the refs could have called three seconds
on
> Baker the few times he did get the ball in the post. I guess the brain
trust
> didn't figure out how we were going to get Baker the ball without a point
> guard. If we had Stockton to go with Baker and his post ability, we would
be
> .500 with just those two players. But it is going to take awhile for these
> guys and the coach to figure out when and where is the right time to get
the
> ball to Vin. So I am knocking them down on my predictions.
>
> One other note on Vin. I am already sick of the eye rolling and the head
> shaking 10 minutes after he has fouled out of the game. I mean, he didn't
> play that bad. He got 7 points and 6 boards.  The guy really has to lower
his
> goals and expectations. 7 and 6 is fine for right now.
>
> Also, I came to the same conclusion on the Wallace comments. It seems to
me
> that Wallace thinks Josh is either a  goof or a mouthpiece with some of
> Wallace's responses. But if Josh doesn't call him on it... I know Josh
> doesn't want to "bite the hand that feeds him" but any "reporter" has to
ask
> the obvious followup questions...
>
>
> > <I'm still pessimistic about the future because of the Baker trade, and
I
> > believe this team will regress this year because of it. But I have to
think
> > the defense will improve and with Pierce and Walker, they still have
enough
> > to be a middle-of-the-pack playoff team. Unfortunately, that's all they
have
> > for the next four years with Baker's contract dragging them down.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > P.S. I've been away, so I didn't get to comment on Wallace's comments to
Joe
> > and Josh. "Would you rather have Vin Baker or Rodney Rogers?" First of
all,
> > the implied simplicity of his question is insulting, but that's typical
of
> > Wallace. He thinks we're all idiots. Secondly, my answer would be Rodney
> > Rogers. Forget the salaries (although you can't!), I'd still take
Rogers.
> > He's just a better fit. And if it's Kenny and Rogers, then it's a
> > no-brainer. And if it's Kenny and Rogers and cap relief after the
season,
> > then you'd have to be a fool to even consider Baker at all. And the "Joe
> > Johnson is not a point guard..." line. Wow. Coming from a GM trotting
out
> > Tony Delk as a starting point guard and who passed on Tony Parker and
Jamaal
> > Tinsley in favor of Joe Forte... Are we supposed to take his word for
it?>