Re: The Boston Celtics Mailing List Digest V10 #10

[Kestutis.Kveraga@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Kestutis Kveraga)]

--- You wrote:
> We not only add more rebounds, stronger defense, a guy who can also 
> play center, and a much better FG% (.517 to .391) to the PF position 
> with Grant, but also we finally get a solid PG (Best) out of the deal 
> as well. AND - we would likely be able to re-sign Best for no more 
> than - maybe even a bit less than - Shammond's present salary of 
> $2 mill.  Wouldn't you rather Best starting ahead of Delk than 
> SWill starting behind Delk?
> 

No..

I don't like Grant. He isn't worth a Walker type talent. Statistics can be 
decieving.
For example you could make a case that Tony Battie is a better player then 
Walker.
--- end of quote ---


I wasn't going to get into discussing yet another "looks great on paper" trade
proposal, but I had to say "me too". Guyclinch is completely right. It's a lot
easier to put up good-looking numbers when you're not the focus of the opposing
defenses, when you don't have to to carry (and in Antoine's case, run) the
team. If guys like Grant and Battie were ever placed in Antoine's situation
(and because of who they are, they never will be), they'd lucky to do half as
well as Antoine. People, stats don't transfer from one team to another, and
especially, from one situation (role player) to another (star). Similarly, two
role players producing similar combined stats as the star won't be able to
maintain that when that star is removed from the equation. There's a huge
difference between roaming around almost unnoticed and cherry-picking while the
other team's attention is devoted to your superstar(s), and producing when that
attention is focused on YOU. 
I think I'm belaboring the obvious, but time and again we see these trade
proposals where people completely ignore the context of players' stats. 
Kestas