Re: The buck stops here

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

That's true and I'm glad to see an executive not try to 
pass the buck.

Still, the chronology of events goes like this:

Gaston says we can't offer Rodney more than 1 million, no 
ifs or buts.

Had Gaston let CW re-sign him for 2+ million, do you 
think the Baker trade would have happened? It might not 
have ever gotten to that stage.  

My view is that it STILL was an indefensible trade.

But Vin's a Celtic now and I'm going to root for him to 
do well.

> ---------- Initial message -----------
> 
> From    : owner-celtics@igtc.com
> To      : celtics@igtc.com
> Cc      : 
> Date    : Thu, 30 Jan 2003 08:57:16 EST
> Subject : The buck stops here
> 
>    Obviously we can now stop blaming Gaston for the 
Baker trade.
>    
> <A 
HREF="http://www.bostonherald.com/sport/celtics/cs01302003
.htm">http://www.bostonherald.com/sport/celtics/cs01302003
.htm</A>:
> 
> *****But, while acknowledging there are risks to any 
deal, Wallace is 
> standing his ground. 
> And he isn't passing the buck on the trade to Paul 
Gaston.
> 
> ``No, he didn't make this deal,'' said Wallace.
> 
> Gaston, the now-former owner, told Wallace only that he 
couldn't go over the 
> veteran minimum to re-sign Rodney Rogers. Further, if 
Gaston were trying to 
> make a sale more palatable, the Baker deal is the last 
he would have wanted 
> because it loads the Celtic payroll for three more 
years after this.*****
> 
-------------------
L'e-mail gratuit pas comme les autres.
NOMADE.FR, pourquoi chercher ailleurs ?