Re: Re: Vin Baker

[Cecil <cecil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yeah, that is why I said that I hoped Mark didn't take my comments the wrong
way cuz I enjoy reading his posts.  I am used to being on an island alone in
most of my feelings about the Celts, so I do not need anyone validating
them.  But here we are winning by 40 points and Baker, not the team, is the
story.  Wallace, not the team, is the story.  Or the victory is only one
game...

Dan is talking about playing the younguns and tanking the season so we can
get in the lottery.  For crissakes!!

How about the game?  Did we play a game last night or were the friggin
cameras in search of a player that has issues which may be totally unrelated
to basketball?  Delk must have felt great huh?  His best game in a month,
returning to health due to injury and what's the topic we're discussing?
Nothing to do with him or J.R. of Pierce or Walker or Battie or anyone other
than Baker and Wallace?

I guess now I am venting.

Cecil

----- Original Message -----
From: Kim <kimmalo@mindspring.com>
To: Berry, Mark S <berrym@BATTELLE.ORG>; <celtics@igtc.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Vin Baker


> Hey Mark
>
> Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I wasn't joining Cecil in questioning  going
through this again - I completely agree with you that the Vinnie situation
is even more relevant to talk about than usual in the light of recent
events.
>
> And actually didn't mean to be targeting you in any way in agreeing with
Joe. I just agree with him  - a) that Celtics fans can always find something
to complain about and b) the corollary implication that sometimes there's
more in their determination to find something than there is actual basis for
complaint.
> And FWIW, an example of that is Kenny's contract where even if we kept it
and let it expire we still wouldn't have had that actual amount to spend on
someone else, because we're too near the cap. Not saying the value of that
expiring contract asset couldn't have been used better, just saying that
some of the complaints about what was done aren't based in reality either.
> Vinnie's definitely cause for complaint though.
>
> As I expect Cecil knows too, and just figures that further complaints
aren't going to advance us anywhere we haven't already been too many times
before (which is why he said it would be different if you were just
venting).
>
> Kim
>
> -------Original Message-------
> From: "Berry, Mark  S" <berrym@BATTELLE.ORG>
> 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