Vin-sanity of a different sort

["Thomas Murphy" <tfmiii@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Joe, Joe, Joe... what are you saying?

1) Gaston's unwillingness to pay the tax was a burden on the franchise
clearly. But it was a well known policy - one I'd bet Wallace was well aware
of when he made the Delk trade.

I can't believe how many people want to excuse the Delk trade on the basis
of "if only Gaston had allowed Wallace to re-sign Rogers..."

This is a fantasy that has no discernable roots in reality. Even when the
trade was made Wallace never intimated that Rogers was anything but a
rental. IIRC a large part of Wallace's discussion of the trade focused on
lowering the salaries - not just this year but in future years (i.e. Rogers
was a goner). It was not difficult to read between the lines and see that
and I wrote that at the time.

The "attempt" to re-sign him was nothing more than a PR charade. But it must
have been a successful charade given how many times I've read that the Delk
trade was "screwed up by Gaston." If you really believe that then you must
also believe that Gaston kept his beliefs concerning the luxury tax hidden
from Wallace over the past 5+ years... not very likely since everyone else
seemed well apprised of his stance. So, unless we're going to go down the
lane to fantasyland the reasonable conclusion would seem to be that Wallace
made the Delk trade KNOWING, indeed PLANNING that Rogers was a goner.

I'm sure some folks just couldn't swallow this assessment at first because -
after all - what GM would trade two first rounders for Tony Delk? But we
have now had ample opportunity to see how Wallace "performs" and seen that
yes, this kind of fleecing fits right in with the rest of his moves.

2) Vin Baker's salary makes no difference? Did I read that right? Well,
without his salary we could be employing someone else at a comparable salary
who could contribute something for one thing. Yes, even Kenny Anderson and
Vitaly (who is now playing, right? Be honest - wouldn't you rather have V
than Vinny right now?) As lame as those two seem they've contributed more
than Vin ever will apparently. And we wouldn't have necessarily had to dump
draft picks (two and counting) and other folks like Blount or Strickland.

But the real pain in having Baker (other than being a locker room cancer in
the sense that any underperforming laze-about tends to lower moral in a team
effort) lies not in questions about the salary cap (this is a red herring as
I suspect you know - we and other teams have been over it for years) but in
the luxury tax. If Kenny's salary came off the books at the end of the year
that would leave roughly $9mil that could be spent on salary cap exceptions
(you can spend quite a bit on these now, what is it up to 4.5 mil per year
or more?) WITHOUT necessarily violating the luxury tax threshold (the true
salary cap in today's NBA).

$9 mil is a lot of money in today's depressed FA market. But you wouldn't
have to spend it all on FAs. After this year they could have netted someone
like a Keon Clark ($4.5mil per year ) via the midlevel exception and another
contributor via the million dollar exception (actually $1.5 mil) at the end
of this season without having to Wallacize the rest of the supporting cast
with non-contributors like they did in hiring Wolko and Sundov.

To get those two extra contributors (and retain current contributors) we
wouldn't need to "leapfrog" 17 other teams in terms of spending - just not
take on Baker's salary. (In any case "leapfrogging" a number of those teams
would not be as Herculean as you make it seem since most teams are bunched
up around our salary figure; i.e., our spending is not so "out of line" with
the rest of the league as is seems you would like to make it appear.)

Or they could have had Kenny for half a year tutoring Bremer and then at
least grabbed Campbell, who despite what others may say now is a far better
contributor than Vin will ever be. Campbell could at the very least
contribute in Obie-ball by rebounding and blocked shots without needing to
be fed the ball on the offensive end. And they STILL would have had
Campbell's salary to play with after the season if he didn't work out (since
his is also an expiring contract).

I wish I could be as sanguine as you are that 3 more years down the tubes
will not impact on the Pierce/Walker window. Lots of stuff can happen in 3
years - injuries, free agency, whatever it is that happened to Baker - so if
you're going to try and build around those two I'd rather try now rather
than having to wait 3 more years for the $12-16 million cap albatross that
is Baker's contract to expire. Plus isn't the point to win, not to win 4
years later due to GM incompetence but as soon and as often as possible?

Personally, I think this edition of the Cs will make the playoffs and
perhaps even win a round or two. They can do almost anything when Pierce is
on his game. But ultimately I don't think they have either the talent level
or the right coaching to do much better than that - and that is within the
east bracket.

Bad ownership by Gaston, bad GMing by Wallace, bad communication between GM
and Coach and bad Coaching (don't get me wrong - good enough to succeed in
the east but not enough to truly contend) - plenty of blame to go around. It
is almost as if each of us with our pet peeves on this list has been a blind
man touching different parts of the elephant. The team goes as far as Pierce
is able to carry it, but even with Walker it's not enough to counteract the
negatives introduced by management.

Like Dan says they'll be entertaining (at least as long as the 3-ball falls)
and I'll be rooting for them but they really have lost a golden opportunity
in pissing away the draft two years ago, compounded by two bad trades (one
possibly the worst bar Babe Ruth) and consistently short-sighted coaching.

I don't think Baker is going to retire and leave Wallace a graceful exit and
ultimately I think the contract squeeze and the need for more talent could
well result in Walker's being traded (heaven forbid Wallace handles that
one). So enjoy the Pierce/Walker while you can.

cheers, TomM

>
> Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 03:13:41 +0200
> From: "hironaka@nomade.fr"<hironaka@nomade.fr>
> Subject: Re: Vent Time-forever stuck in neutral
>
> > ---------- 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 ?