Re: What About This?

["Dan Forant" <dforant1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ditto....nowhere else to go but up from here. Nice team building around PP.

DanF

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Shawn Niles" <shizzjr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <dforant1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; <Celtics@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 9:11 AM
Subject: Re: What About This?


> Agreed.
> I think we all know this is not a championship caliber team right now. As
> such, we really have no right to be upset if they are only a 7 or 8 seed
> this year. Maybe not even if they miss the playoffs. The signs are there
> that this team is going to take off. The pieces are in place. It's just
> going to take a little bit of time for some of the rooks to get their feet
> wet. I really see this as a learning year. It would not surprise me to see
> this team win in the mid 50's next season and low 60's the season after.I
> feel that strongly about the way Ainge is building things here and the
> direction he has the team going in.
>
>
> >From: "Dan Forant" <dforant1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >To: <Celtics@xxxxxxxx>
> >Subject: Re: What About This?
> >Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 20:31:00 -0500
> >
> >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.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Surf and talk on the phone at the same time with broadband Internet
access.
> Get high-speed for as low as $29.95/month (depending on the local service
> providers in your area).  https://broadband.msn.com