Re: Vin Baker

["Berry, Mark S" <berrym@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 06:44 PM 2/6/03 +0200, hironaka@nomade.fr wrote:
As for Chris Wallace, if Vitaly and Kenny were in uniform
tonight for Boston (IR at the start of the year), our GM
would be getting roundly criticized for not having done a
thing but lose Strickland and Rodney Rogers while our
rivals all took steps to improve. There's always
something to complain about.

And Kim responded:

Bingo.
Including remembering that we wouldn't even have had VP for most of the
season to date, and what that would have meant to Battie's cranky knees. Not
to defend the Baker gamble, but you're dead on that there's always something
to complain about among Cs fans, even when there isn't <g>

--- --- ---

Have to disagree a little here. It's one thing to criticize the team for
letting Rodney Rogers and Eric Strickland go for financial reasons. You
bitch about the owner and move on. If Wallace's hands had been tied, then
what do you do? But I'd wager, with the new owners now in place, we'd be
talking about what options we have with Kenny's expiring contract. Shareef
Abdur Rahim? Theo Ratliff? Brian Grant? Eddie Jones? I think the level of
criticism would only rise if Wallace looked at those options and then
decided to turn Kenny's contract into Vin Baker... oops, he already did.

Yes, the Vin Baker trade has been discussed quite a bit. But last night was
a whole new chapter, and there are sure to be more. Kestas already mentioned
the "chemistry" comments Tommy and Mike kept going on and on about. What do
you think they were talking about? I'd like to say we hit rock bottom with
the Baker Era last night, but I'm pretty sure we're in for worse. And if you
don't think that's relevant to talk about, then I guess I just don't
understand.

Mark