Re: Did anyone hear Leo Papile on the radio last night?

[bird <birdw@xxxxxxx>]

> From :Kestutis.Kveraga@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Kestutis Kveraga)
> I considered it while writing it. But the difference is, I don't think
> everybody else is stupid, just that Wallace and Papile are. And even 
> they are
> stupid only in a limited sense  - in some ways, W & P are probably 
> really
> clever, such as knowing how to schmooze the owners and the media and 
> being able
> to sell your ideas to them, no matter how dead wrong they are. Only 
> that can
> explain their getting and retaining their jobs, as well as the 
> honeymoon with
> the media that lasted for years.
While I don't see Wallace as being "dead wrong", it was nice to see you 
admit that he isn't a *complete* moron, and that he can do something 
right.  As for being wrong, he took a big gamble in the face of some 
serious constraints and has rolled pretty much snakeyes so far.  Well, 
maybe not that bad, but pretty bad.

I also think the media honeymoon, such as it was, was mostly as a 
result of the "new team, very similar to the old team" having a little 
success and not being Rick Pitino.  After the honeymoon that results in 
anything new happening, the team had the success that made it unpopular 
for sportswriters to rag on them.  Then, when there are chinks in the 
armor, the arrows fly.  This is a classic newspaper game.

> I was being sarcastic. They've blamed it on Red numerous times, and 
> maybe it
> WAS his pick. I don't  know for sure. But who's running the team, 
> Wallace or
> Red? If they thought Red was wrong on Forte, why did they pick him?
Ah, I didn't get that.  A legitimate question about who's running the 
team.  If you take Red's advice, you've still got to take the heat, 
because you're running the team, and frankly, it's lame to lay that on 
Red's doorstep.  Red's on a statue in Boston.  He's a freaking 
institution.  He's really old.  He gets to have his opinions without 
getting the public backlash.  He's been there, done that.  Man's not in 
his prime anymore, and he deserves a little rest.  It's up to the 
people running the team to decide what advice to take, and what not to.

That having been said, I don't think they necessarily intended to blame 
Red.  They were just trying to sell Forte when he was struggling (and 
they thought they were going to keep him, or they were shopping him), 
and in trying to uh, honor him, I guess, they invoke Red's name, but 
they haven't learned one of the best Red lessons, which is to only 
light it up when you're sure you've got something.  So when Forte 
proved to be not as ready as others taken after him, and was dealt, Red 
was left holding the metaphorical bag.

> The Rogers-Delk/Johnson trade was fine, but 1) it only came about in 
> the first
> place because JJ was a bad pick; 2) Wallace didn't foresee that that he
> wouldn't be able to sign Rogers. So, is Delk for the #10 pick such a 
> great
> trade? I don't know. To use Wallace's second favorite retort, who 
> would you
> rather have, Delk or Jefferson/ Parker/ Randolph?
1) There's always a thing before something that can be pointed to as 
"the real reason".  I don't care if it only came about because of 
something else, to me that was a good trade, we got guys to help us 
make the ECF, and come close to winning.  Delk took a year to really 
begin to blossom, and Rogers ought to have been re-signed.  But, as for 
2), you're right.  Maybe he figured the Rent-a-Rodney was worth it, or 
that Paul Gaston (*ptui!*) would lay some cash on the table after 
seeing some success (and thus, revenues), but if you're not going to 
re-sign Rogers, it's a bad trade.  Might've been another gamble by 
Wallace.  Maybe he takes too many gambles.

> Anyway, I hope you're right about Wallace's status. The latest 'no 
> comment'
> from Grousbeck is encouraging. Let's hope that the earlier statements 
> of
> support for the BDT were just good manners.
I don't know.  One of my fears from the summer might be coming true: 
that this year is a sort of holdover year where the C's make the 
playoffs, but don't go very far, but there's promise for next year.  
Since a lot of that obviously hinged on Vin Baker, there's a lot of 
disappointment.  The team will still be very fun to watch at times, and 
infuriating to watch at times, but there may be changes on the 
horizons.  Since neither I (nor anyone else) knows the future, I can 
still have a little hope that someone can dig the team out from under 
this impediment.  Mitch Richmond was traded.  Juwan Howard was traded.  
(And before someone must respond with a comparison of either of those 
guys and Baker, I'm saying that "untradable" contracts can be traded.)  
Let's hope that with the possibility of change some good decisions, 
really good decisions for a change, are made.  I hate to offer a 
panacea, especially one I don't think is likely, but I'm going to 
anyway.  Best thing to do is bring a guy like Larry Bird in to acquire, 
mold, and run a team any way he damn well sees fit.

> The BDT must go!
Cato would be very proud of us.

Paul Gaston delenda est.

Bird