Re: What About This?

["Dan Forant" <dforant1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I look at it this way. We have a decent team to date. Plenty of size, speed,
a game plan, and some scorers along with blockers and rebounders. So until
proven otherwise I believe the Celts are a lower 2nd tier team in the East
which is no bastion of talent. We are shaky at the point so if we're not
willing to trade anyone worthwhile to get someone worthwhile we can just
keep playing Banks to spell James and let him get baptized by fire. He
wasn't all that bad vs., Heat. OB can limit his plays and get the ball out
of his hands quicker so he doesn't get too lost out there. With 4-5 new
starters this will be a melding season, so why not work in Banks along with
the rest. My expectations aren't that high where I would get disappointed
with a 7-8 playoff spot. I'm very happy with this brand of round ball.
Running, swinging the ball around, working it inside and back out etc. With
the exception of Banks and Waltuh  the Celts looked like they were together
for at least a season......

DanF


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <RickDHome@xxxxxxx>
To: <Celtics@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 7:05 PM
Subject: What About This?


> James was better than I suspected he would be.  The team was clearly more
in
> sync when he was in.  Banks was real shaky.  Not nearly ready.  I think
his
> development should be limited to 8 to 10 minutes a game.  James is good
for
> 20-25.
>
> Here's maybe a wild thought.  I'm not comfortable with too much Banks this
> season.  Not remotely implying he might not be pretty good down the line,
but I
> think this team can make some hay this season.
>
> I want to join the chorus that likes our respectable 4 bigs rotation, and
> don't want to trade either Battie OR Williams.
>
> So, just as a stopgap one year minimum wage deal, how about bringing in
Rod
> Strickland... just for this year.  Give Banks a little more time to
develop.
>
> Seems reasonable to me, particularly at the veterans minimum salary.  I
like
> that idea a helluva lot better than Battie for Knight, or some such thing
(I
> know, I'm changing my tune).  Battie really has a pretty reasonable salary
for
> what he brings to the table... at least for our team.
>
> I'm for bringing Strickland in this year.  What say you folks?
>
> And a P.S.  -  Still think Kedrick is the very definition of passive, and
> Danny'll end up trading him.