Re: Walker

[CeltsSteve@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 7/5/03 9:52:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time, GuyClinch@xxxxxxx 
writes:

> Yeah..you keep on saying this.. But your not paying enough attention to the 
> responses.


Trust me, Pete. I've paid real close attention to the responses. First Jim's, 
then Egg's, and now yours. And not one of the three objectively addressed any 
of Pierce's shortcomings. 

One of the three (Jim's) suggested Pierce has few to no faults; yours implies 
that you don't even know what faults Pierce has; and the third (Egg's) didn't 
reference any faults one way or the other but used a specious hypothesis to 
try as the basis to once again slam Antoine..


> If you want to claim their is a double standard please tell us WHAT the 
> "shortcomings" of Pierce's game are?


Read my previous post in response to Egg. And if you need to TRULY need to 
ask what are Paul's shortcomings then I guess trying to continue having an 
objective discussion with you on this topic is futile.



 > Now Twan is frequently called a "leader and a winner" but he never lead 
> anyone anywhere before Pierce arrived with the Celtics. If DA trades Walker for 
> say Stromile Swift and Battie the Celts will still win 44+ games. Watch and 
> learn.. 

 


Then you in essence just contradicted yourself. On the one hand you cite 
Walker for never having led the C's anywhere or won anything (as if the C's were 
oozing with talent to begin with) prior to Pierce's arrival 

Then in the next sentence you suggest that without Walker the team is still 
just a 44 win ballclub with Pierce as "the man". Not exactly a ringing 
endorsement for Pierce, huh? What have the C's won since Pierce arrived, by the way? 




<<But his value is VASTLY overrated by some in this list..including you>>

Actually, I don't overrate Walker at all. I know what his strengths and his 
weaknesses are and I admit them. 

The issue here, though, isn't Walker's strengths and weaknesses or a rehash 
of Walker vs. Pierce; it's Pierce's weaknesses and the fact that the Pierce 
supporters steadfastly refuse to talk about them and/or gloss over them or in 
more than one case  pretend they don't exist. Instead of examining and 
scrutinizing Pierce, I guess it's easier for them to try to turn the argument back into 
an Antoine vs. Paul issue.       
    
Steve