Re: Vin-sanity of a different sort

["Thomas Murphy" <tfmiii@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I get the digest so perhaps someone has already pointed this out already. If
so, my apologies.

Joe, if the Baker trade had not been made you simply DO NOT subtract V's and
Forte's salary from the $9 million that Kenny's expiring contract gives us.
That demonstrates how much more money Baker is taking home: he is making
almost as much as Kenny and V COMBINED (not quite that much, which was why
Shammond had to be included).

So, yes, you *would* have had virtually the entire $9 million to "play with"
in addition to retaining V and Forte. Neither of those two salaries needs to
be "subtracted" from Kenny's expiring salary to calculate our savings and/or
room-under-the-luxury tax.

To say otherwise is to be suckered in by the Wallace/Papile "new math" that
has been propagated to disguise the financial implications of the Baker
deal.

At "best" you can say is that the Baker deal "only" cost us $7 mil because
the $2 mil for Shammond (now Blount and Bryant) would come off after this
year, but that argument is still $2 mil versus $9 mil (the $9 mil does not
"disappear").

Let's do the math:
$9 mil (Kenny's expiring contract) + $5.7 (V) +$1 (Forte)  = $15.7 mil.
Baker's salary for next year $13.5 mil  + 2 mil (shammond's expiring
contract) = $15.5 mil

So the numbers add up: you could have had Kenny's expiring contract *and*
Vitaly plus Forte OR Baker and Shammond's (now Blount and Bryant) expiring
contract.

In short: $9 million PLUS Vitaly and Forte versus $2 mil plus Baker. (BTW
how in the world do you figure that after the Baker trade the "Celtics still
have 5 to 7 million to spend on a new player"?!?)

But arguing that Baker "only cost us $7 mil" still obscures fundamental
facts:

1) Need for a backup center - that was covered by Vitaly - not so by Vin. As
a consequence we just blew another 2nd round pick to reacquire someone we
most likely would have kept but for Vin's arrival.

2) You can lure a quality FA for the mid level exception ($5 mil) if you
have $9 mil worth of freedom under the luxury tax - not so if you only have
$2 mil. (BTW I'm not talking about out-bidding such an offer, just the
ability to make it in the first place. Your mention of "out-bidding" is just
another red-herring)

3) Other contracts may increase faster than the cap - so your $2 mil now may
be eaten up by existing contract obligations. But even if you subtract $2
mil from the $9 mil to account for this it still leaves you roughly $7 mil
to make an midlevel offer and a 1 mil exception offer - two more FA options
than we have now.

4) Interim bench contracts - do you really believe we would have been
scraping the bottom of the barrel (Wolko, Sundov) if we still had Kenny,
Vitaly, Forte, and possibly Blount or Strickland on board? This is an often
overlooked aspect of the Baker trade - the bench is now quite thin,
basically Waltah and a prayer. Unfortunately this is likely to be an ongoing
problem as long as Baker's contract is pushing us right up against the
luxury tax whereas without the trade it would have only been a one year
squeeze.

With regards to your dig about "whining" about Baker I must say I'm a bit
surprised. Although I've never hidden my views on the trade I hardly think
I've been winge-ing and moaning about it - if anything I haven't been
posting much at all lately and even then I think the few times I've posted
have had more to do about the status of the list than about the Celtics per
se (my bad).

My comments were not prompted by a desire to "whine" about Baker as much as
a concern for the truth (as I see it, natch). You said that Baker's contract
was not a big deal. Nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, it is an
unpleasant truth but that doesn't alter the fact of the matter.

Why is any of this important? Well, in the big scheme it isn't, it's just
sports. But in the context of sports (or any other endeavor) we oftentimes
have to have truthful access to the past in order to make better judgments
in the future, in this instance about the worth of Wallace and Papile in
evaluating talent and making trades. To simply "quietly move on" and allow
disinformation about the trade carry the day and color our perceptions to
the point where one could say "well, I guess the Baker deal was a mistake
but not catastrophic" misses the point precisely - it WAS catastrophic, not
because it will prevent us from competing for the playoffs (it won't) or
prevent us from enjoying rooting for the team (it can't) but because it was
so obviously the WRONG trade on EVERY level - financially, talent-wise, in
terms of chemistry, future team development, championship potential, you
name it. And it's not like we were all surprised - at the time the ENTIRE
LEAGUE was aghast - but Wallace was going to prove them ALL wrong. Everyone
makes mistakes but only a truly arrogant idiot takes on someone else's
*proven* mistake.

This mistake has had and will continue to have multiple negative
ramifications for the team. Many, perhaps most people still don't seem to
understand the depth of the difficulties introduced by it ("hey, we have the
same record as last season"). Merely glossing it over doesn't help. Unless
more folks understand how catastrophic it was/is I am not hopeful that
Wallace will be removed. I'm not as sanguine as you are that his head is
already on the block. Just look at the bozo GM over at Golden State and ask
yourself how long he's been there. I fear that we could well be in for a
similar experience [shudder] for as long as Pierce and Walker can both stand
on two legs.

----- Original Message -----
From: <hironaka@nomade.fr>
To: <tfmiii@worldnet.att.net>
Cc: <Celtics@igtc.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: Vin-sanity of a different sort


> ---------- Initial message -----------
>
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?)
------------------

It isn't the entire 9 million. I wish it were. We'd have
to subtract Vitaly's 5.7 million and Forte's 1.08 million
from that.

(BTW, I've read that the veteran's exception will be 5
million, although maybe others can confirm that for you)

As for luxury tax, Kenny clearing the cap this summer
(Vitaly still on board) would have left a projected
payroll around 47 million.

There are two linked issues with that:

One, if Boston re-signed Kenny at a discount (or a
replacement FA starting point guard), plus FA's Walt and
Bremer, plus two first round draft picks, we'd be close
to where we are now with Vin on board.

Two, if Boston or anyone ELSE wants to outbid the five
million dollars that other teams can automatically offer
top FAs through the veteran's exception (regardless of
team payroll), they need to be not just at the salary cap
but more than 5 million under it (maybe 34 million
payroll at most). Strictly speaking, this would have been
unrealistic even before the ill-fated Vin Baker trade.

What surprises me is the latest spin on list about how
I'm now "defending" the Baker trade.

A week before the trade even happened, back when it was
chat room fodder, I was the guy that was weeping and
wailing about how terrible it was, how implausible it
was, how stupid it would be for the GM to do this. I made
the very same arguments I read now (but maybe said
better) :-) and louder than anyone else.

But now there's no gain in it. Have you heard me whine
about the trade months after the fact?

My father told me once, in my impressionable youth, that
any time I spend thinking about mistakes of the past is a
negative use of my time. "What ifs" should be posed
regarding the future, not in reference to the (never
perfect)past.

Yeah, how "deep" I know, but he's an impressive guy. ;-)
The best advice I've ever come up with so far with my own
son, Koji, is "boys don't whine". To me, that gets at
least the gist of my father's advice, as to how boys
should approach challenges in life.

The Vin Baker fiasco is a crippling situation (and was a
terrible trade idea) but its NOT the end of the world.

I'd rather point out where the trade now puts Boston in
numbers, particularly if it means a choice between doing
that or just whining. Part of moving on means firing the
GM and identifying a superior replacement.

To those who say the new owners seem too "naive" to fire
the GM, imagine if you were the guy actually signing pay
checks in excess of one million dollars per month to Vin
Baker, knowing you'll be doing the same thing every month
into 2006? Enough said.

But at the same time, Boston's relative cap position
hasn't changed that much. Moreover, Boston's relative
payroll may still be below that which a defending "Final
Four" team could justify spending (18th overall). And the
Celtics still have 5 to 7 million to spend on a new
player.

As crippling as the Baker trade was, its up to the owners
whether we spend the entitled exception or not. The
organization and its fans just have to move on.

I'm quietly moving on too. I read one "argument" in
particular that seemed to me so deliberately dishonest
and irrational, it made me for the first time sick of
this list and some people on it. I prefer to be a
solitary fan, or participate in other lists.





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