re: A man with a plan?

[bird <birdwl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: Tammo29@xxxxxxx
>     Anyone else left scratching their head after reading this chat 
> wrap?
>     Wallace sounds like he has as many questions as we do.
I don't know, I didn't get that impression at all.  Wallace comes under 
a lot of criticism, and not all of it is deserved.  Oh, sure, he's a 
spinmeister par exellance, that's clear.  The EWill comment shows that 
-- sure, five years ago and before an ACL injury, he was the leading 
point-per-minute man at shooting forward.  What kind of fool is 
convinced by this?  It's like six degrees of separation from the truth. 
 But, what does telling the truth do for Chris Wallace?  Not much as 
far as I can see.  People may think they have some sort of right to 
hear the truth from their team's GM, but that's a fallacy.  I will say 
that the stuff Joe H. was suggesting would go over better with people, 
though.  Everyone's a "jump shot away" or would be taken in the top ten 
if they were in the draft this year, or some other nonsense.  It 
doesn't mean anything.  It's just his words -- what really matters are 
his actions.

And I'll give him credit for them.  He's got the heuvos to take a big 
gamble on a former All-Star who hit near-bottom.  All in all, it's a 
pretty good gamble, given the owner's monetary constraints.  I don't 
see how losing Rogers, not paying Strick, or not being able to get 
anyone but the bargain basement folks is his fault.  The owner won't 
pay up.  Given that rather ominous, but clear, constraint, Wallace has 
done well to take a chance on a big-money former star who may regain a 
part of past ability.  And, he's come under budget, which we should all 
remember is the whole point of this franchise, from upper management's 
perspective.

The only time Wallace comes off as nearing the truth is when we hear 
things from Josh O., and even then, sometimes it's iffy.  It's a bit 
unreasonable to expect him to be telling the truth.  What do y'all want 
from him: "Well, we've got a lot of minimum-types, and we're hoping at 
least one of them might not suck real hard"?  That serves no purpose.  
I'll admit again that the kind of statements Joe was suggesting would 
be better for all concerned, but I'll take what I can get.

There are sure a lot of questions this season, but what else is new?  
Every year, it boils down to a few core questions.  This year, it seems 
to be about how Baker will perform, how the platoon of pg's will 
handle, and how the bench will contribute.  I've got no questions about 
the captains.  I only hope they stay healthy.  They're going to give 
some top-level help to the team.  If Baker can approach that, and the 
other core questions (including the ones I haven't thought of) can be 
answered in the C's favor, it'll be a great year.  Not going to know 
until these guys get on the court.

Bird