Celts could have had Rodney White?

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

That's what the Sporting News' Sean Devaney says: 

It did not happen before the trade deadline, but don't be surprised to see
the Grizzlies make a pitch for Nuggets G/F Rodney White near draft day. The
Nuggets tried to give away White before the deadline -- the Celtics said,
"No, thanks" -- but he remains a favorite of Grizzlies President Jerry West.
When West was a semiretired consultant in 2001, he said he thought White was
the best player in the draft.

--- --- ---

I don't know if Rodney White is going to be any good or not. He clearly has
defensive "issues" that have kept him from seeing much time in Detroit or
Denver. But that's the kind of upside deal that would have made sense if
you're going to trade Shammond (which I was all for, in general). You give
up an asset-a decent player with an expiring contract-in order to get a
potentially more valuable asset. The team getting the shorter contract gives
up the higher upside player. Instead, the Celtics gave up the higher value
now player and the higher upside player.

Anyway, Mark Blount apparently has completely remade himself in the short
time he was away. Last season he was a clueless, soft, 12th man. Now,
according to Shira, he's "a tough, physical center" who already is paying
dividends in practice. Even Josh, in his latest column, says Blount has been
transformed into "a strong, athletic, shotblocking big man... " No wonder
this guy was a lottery pick. Or would have been, right? 

One more thing... Joe, you can't be serious when you say the Vin Baker
contract doesn't impact the Celtics. As others have already pointed out, the
salary cap isn't the barrier. It's the luxury tax. Without the Baker deal,
the Celts could have used the full $5 million exception after this season
and still been just around the luxury tax threshold. Now, if they use it,
they spend $10 million for what really is a $5 million player. You're right
that the owners still could do that, but it's a lot less likely, don't you
think?

That doesn't even take into account the fact that you've almost
instantaneously limited your bench to two guys or so. It's one thing to
convince ownership that you need to go into the luxury tax for a starter, or
even a sixth man. But when you start going to the seventh, eighth, ninth
guys and down the line, that's a tougher sell. So you find yourself stocking
that bench with minimum wage guys-hello, Bruno!-and then we're supposed to
be surprised when the bench is consistently abused by the opponents'
reserves? When you have a 12th man making $11 million, the problem is
exaggerated even more, because he's not in that seven-man rotation. Should
Grant Long be playing major minutes on a playoff team? Should Mark Blount?
Even Walter McCarty? And the Celtics already employ one of the least
productive starters in the league in Eric Williams. Vin Baker's contract
absolutely has an impact on that. And will continue to have an impact on
that until it comes off the books. Of course, knowing the BDT, they'll
probably cash in Baker's expiring contract for another horrible deal.

Mark

P.S. Josh again makes a good point about the glass ceiling with this team.
And it's self-imposed. The "system" doesn't enable anyone other than Walker
and Pierce to really excel. You want an upgrade at center? Well, he has to
be able to blitz the point guard on the pick and roll, so we're probably
limited to mobile power forward types. You want an upgrade at point guard?
Well, he has to be able to hit the 3-point shot and hand off to Antoine.
They clearly see small forward as the one available starting spot, but
they've been completely unable to find someone to displace Eric Williams
(which shouldn't be hard). The system is so limiting. If you believe the
team as it is constructed and operated is good enough to win a championship,
then you're fine with things. If you believe it's not good enough (as I do),
then this "system" is completely frustrating.