Re: Vent Time-forever stuck in neutral

["hironaka@xxxxxxxxx"<hironaka@xxxxxxxxx>]

> ---------- Initial message -----------
> 
> From    : owner-celtics@igtc.com
> To      : celtics@igtc.com
> Cc      : 
> Date    : Fri, 21 Feb 2003 12:07:37 -0800 (PST)
> Subject : Vent Time-forever stuck in neutral
> 
> The problem is that there is not a clear way to improve 
upon this team for at least 3 years after what everyone 
will agree is the worst concieved trade of any Boston 
sports team short of the Babe going to the Yanks. This is 
where I am going to vent.. What was our management 
thinking!!!!!!!????????? I have asked myself this almost 
everyday since THAT trade.

****

I've read this opinion on the list a lot in one form or 
another...Mark Berry wrote something similar and I always 
read him. I'm sure others have said the same thing too.

Just because Leo and Chris Wallace are smug and talk down 
to outsiders like we are trusting simpletons, that 
doesn't mean in every case that what they say is 
factually incorrect. The truth hurts.

For instance, Wallace and Leo have it right that the Vin 
Baker trade ultimately changes almost nothing between 
2003-2006, given that the only relevant number these days 
is the salary cap figure, an artificially low number 
obviously, plus the luxury tax threshold.

I'll type this opinion really fast, and so it might not 
be as clearly explained as it could be, but here goes.

Prior to the Vin Baker trade there were around 15 teams 
(mostly playoff teams) willing to spend more payroll than 
Boston. That's a lot of teams ahead of you, when your 
professed aim is to be number one. This was of course a 
familiar Gaston phenomenon.

Following the infamous Vin trade, Boston is in the same 
position as before (actually Boston has the 17th highest 
payroll this year according to Hoopshype). 

First point: the Baker trade made a difference in future 
payrolls, but it made NO difference on the salary cap. I 
hate to side with Leo on this, but it is simply a fact. 
The Celtics were over the projected cap this summer with 
Potapenko/Forte on board even if we made no token effort 
to resign Kenny as a free agent. 

THe next year (end of Vin's year two), Boston would have 
been roughly 3 million over the cap prior to the trade.

The third year there's guesswork involved, since you only 
have 6 Celtics under contract making around 4 million 
under the present cap. 

Suffice it to say, that third year no Vin scenario 
already involves losing two current starters without 
spending one penny to replace them over that span - draft 
picks, re-signing Walter or Bremer, you name it. 

Long story short, there was NO CAP ROOM with or without 
Vin. 

Maybe many people already knew this much, buts its not a 
trivial point: Boston has 3 max contracts on our roster 
already, and yet 16 teams have a larger payroll this 
season.

The second issue is luxury tax. 

As I noted above, Boston's new owners have to decide, and 
thus will soon decide, whether the 17th highest payroll 
is enough to leap frog 16 teams to a championship. That's 
our goal. Can we do it?

I'm finally getting to my point, which is the following: 
If the Celtics organization WANTS to spend to try to win 
championship during Walker-Pierce's prime years in 
Boston, nothing blocks us from doing so. 

Not Vin Baker, not Vin Laden, not Vinnie Barbarino..

If the media publishes reports that blame Vin Baker's 
contract for our not making a move this summer, that's 
just noise. It's just an excuse. He's a SCAPEGOAT.

The issue isn't Vin Baker. 

The issue is money and the owner's willingness to move 
from 17th payroll to 17th banner.

For instance, let's say the Celtics blow the entire 5 
million exception on a sixth man or third scorer come 
this summer. That puts payroll on par with NJ's payroll. 
Slightly less, but still in the ball part at least. 

Let's daydream and assume Boston spends the other 2 
million or even another 5 million on top of that when we 
are eligible. That would move Boston, Vin Baker's 
contract and all, just below Philly's current payroll 
this season. 

Now we're going cuckoo. In year three or four add a third 
5 million player to our bench like Sacramento has in 
abundance. That will be when Boston finally 
approaches "big market" basketball like Sacramento's 
current 2002-03 payroll. 

That's what teams pay out there.

Lets assume Boston slowly over the middle decade 
surrounds Pierce and Antoine with one or two of 
Sacramento's top role players, say a Keon type or Divac 
or Christie or Jackson type? 

Will our captains be better basketball players with that 
kind of support? Antoine is 29 during the 05-06 season, 
Pierce is 28. There's still time. Things are not as dire 
as make it.

Getting back to my point, what does Vin Baker have to do 
with any of the above scenarios? The answer is ZERO. He's 
factored into all the above equation and his impact is 
zero. 

The issue isn't Vin. The issue is what to do about our 
lotto-13 level payroll. That's how I interpret it.

I've read posts to the effect that Boston is now a 
mediocre first round exit team for the rest of the 
decade, and, moreover, its actually ALL Vin Baker's 
fault. 

Is that analysis, or is that whining?

We made a terrible trade and most of us got over it. 
Baker doesn't even play. He doesn't hurt the team, he 
doesn't help the team. We didn't give up anything I miss 
that much for him.

If the Celtics tend to exit in the first round, its 1) 
because the captains aren't up to the job and 2) because 
virtually everyone of the 16 playoff teams will spend 
more on payroll than us.

Those are the two main issues. It is NOT Vin Baker 
anymore. Leave the guy alone. He's just a guy on the 
bench with a ridiculous contract. I'm not happy about it, 
but I'm not going to scapegoat him. 

I stress this because, while our grass may look 
distinctly crabbier, you actually see the same lawnscapes 
all over the NBA. Seriously. 

Who is in a more ridiculous predicament right now, Boston 
or NJ (with Jason's attempted flight to the Spurs and 
Dikembe's 50+ million)? Let's quit whining.

There are sixteen teams in front of us paying stupid 
contracts, but not always acting like babies about it.

If Sacramento loses in the first round to say the Lakers, 
do you expect fans are going to moan about how Brent 
Price (who is HE and what has he ever done?) gets paid 
Tony Battie type money to sit on the Sac bench?

They pay the luxury tax, we don't. THat's the only issue.

The Celtics have a bright future. They have a promising 
platform to win, with two ulta-competive durable leaders 
who actually can pass and steal the ball at an elite 
level, as well as rebound, create shots without any help 
from pick or screens etc. 

ANd better yet of course, Boston is working from the base 
of just the 17th payroll to add new parts. What's all the 
moaning about?

I'm prepared for this Spring to be dicey, for the simple 
reason that each opponent will have spent 5-15 million 
more on their bench and supporting cast, while we're 
still back in the Jurassic Gaston lotto payroll epoch.

But next Summer, we have 7 million in exceptions on top 
of contracts for two rookies. Spend it and we're in the 
ballpark with more representative playoff team payrolls.

To sum up, the Vin Baker trade was a terrible, terrible 
gamble gone bad. Boston is in worse shape than before. 
The new owners will indeed have to pay millions more in 
non-performing salaries than they have to, even if our 
overall payroll is quite low.

But its NOT the end of the world. Its not time for 
prolonged mourning. 

Boston should get rid of the GM and move on. The future 
is pretty much the same as it was before the trade, 
because the future is exactly in the same hands it was 
before (Antoine and Pierce). 

If they live up to our expectations, let's celebrate. I 
sense the possibility every time I watch them. And if 
they fail to take us out of the first round, let's blame 
them.

Its not Vin's fault. Vin doesn't even play.

THe lux tax is maybe akin to the sound barrier, rocky 
when you get close to it or try to move in and out from 
season to season to maintain 17th place in payroll. 

I'm hoping that once we pass through that luxury tax, 
there will be a realization that you can't turn back and, 
moreover, that the flying and the views are nicer from up 
there.

Once Wyc gets 5 million or so over the cap this summer, 
there may be that sense of inevitability in this state of 
affairs, an accurate summation of where league payrolls 
actually are. There may also be a realization that the 
team owes it to its fans AT MINIMUM to compete with the 
top 10-16 teams each season in payroll. 

THat's really the going rate if they want to build a 
championship run around Pierce and Walker.

If the salary cap were 55 or 60 million, that would 
change a lot of what's written above. But as long as its 
so ridiculously low, Leo Papile is right and safe in 
saying that Vin Baker has nothing to do with anything. 
Its too draconian. Once it get ammended or tossed, it 
will become that much harder for the owners to justify a 
17th ranked payroll on a Final Four team from last season.

I'm not going to proofread this, and so I hope I didn't 
come across as insulting to anyone or their views. I 
understand the strong emotions around Vin Baker. I can 
only guess at how repetitive or unreadable this post is. 
Anyway, I should get on with work.

Joe H.

-------------------
L'e-mail gratuit pas comme les autres.
NOMADE.FR, pourquoi chercher ailleurs ?