RE: Cleveland game, Rasheed trade, etc.

[Ryan W <ubiquitous_am_i@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- "Berry, Mark  S" <berrym@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I'm going to respond to several different posters
> here:
> 
> 1. Why didn't the Celtics do a similar deal with
> Antoine? Ainge didn't
> want to wait another year and a half. Antoine wasn't
> on board with the
> style changes and was sabotaging the changes Ainge
> was trying to make.
> He didn't want that kind of influence around for 18
> months. If it had
> just been a bad contract, maybe he could have
> waited. But he wanted to
> change the culture of the team, and that wasn't
> happening as long as
> Antoine was around.
> 

Mark, 

Ainge didn't want to wait a year a half?  I guess
that's because he'd rather wait 3-5 years instead.  It
seems he's willing to be patient in one respect (the
vaunted 3 year [going on 5] plan with all the young,
athletic talent), but not patient in another (I don't
know about you, but I'd wait a year for a
Ratliffe/Rahim-type deal as opposed to accepting a
LaFrentz/Welsh-type deal right now, "culture" wars or
"grip" be damned).  

And you say he wanted to change the culture of the
team?  I guess a culture of losing is preferable to a
culture of winning.  

Our "culture" right now is unbearable.  Our players
are clueless, either from lack of coaching, direction
from upstairs, or inherent deficencies.  They are not
playing with the requisite heart or intensity.  Our
best player is having his worst year.  Our rookies are
not being developed (with the exception of Marcus,
whose development could have been greater with better
coaching, usage, and mentorship---btw, who has noticed
that his play has really dropped off, except for last
night's game, since O'Brien left?).  Our fucking
coach, a man of universally respected integrity, quit
IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SEASON, with millions on the
table.  It seems like whatever culture changes Danny
is attempting to implement are failing.

Listen, Mark, it wasn't about changing the "culture"
or losening the "grip" as much as Danny incorrectly
thinking that Antoine's highest value was in the
preseason following an offseason of unprecedented (for
Antoine) physical training.  Trading Antoine in the
preseason was Danny's motive from the beginning.  It
was his "brilliant plan" (Egg is right, Ainge thinks
he knows better, and probably theorized that Antoine
would have his highest trade value following a summer
of intense workouts).  That's why he told Antoine to
get in shape in that meeting following the Nets
series.  He was motivating him so as to later trade
him.  This was a miscalculation and the Wallace for
Rahim/Ratliffe trade proves it.  If you have big
contracts, you only get big value when you trade them
either (1) when they're young and playing well or (2)
in the last year of that big contract.  Danny did
neither.  Regardless of how in shape Antoine was, he
had just came off a horrible playoff showing against
the Nets (during which he was injured, btw).  Even if
Antoine was playing well, I would contend that you
would never get anywhere near equal value unless you
were trading him in the last year of his contract
(because the capspace represented by Antoine's
contract is probably greater than anything he can do
on the court).       

Lastly, you say Antoine wasn't on board with Danny's
style changes?  Can you blame him?  Nobody gets along
with Danny, unless they're hired by Danny (and echoing
Egg's earlier post, I wonder how long it is till Danny
starts having problems with his guys as well).  If
Danny can rub of man of O'Brien's caliber the wrong
way, he can do it to anyone.  

Ryan

P.S.  Mark I'm totally on board with Ainge's
philosophy regarding this team.   I want us to get
back to the Celtic tradition now exemplified by the
Kings and Mavs.  However, Danny is implementing his
plan in an absolutely incorrect manner.  Once you have
a team that is winning and is winning with young
players that have grown with the team from the lean
till the good years, you can't just blow that team up.
 You have to sustain it and gradually change it's
composition (that is, if you believe they can't, as
presenting constituted, contend for a championship). 
It's so hard to build a winner, to get from lottery
bound into the playoffs.  You might get lucky, and get
LeBron or Duncan, but usually you have to suffer and
suffer until you finally break through.  And once you
break through, you must do every thing you can to
sustain your rank.  Why?  Because things are built in
small steps and it's easier to get to the championship
if you've been in the playoffs for a couple years than
it is to just show up in the playoffs all of a sudden.
 Whatever momentum or "culture" we created the last
two playoff years is dead.  In fact, those years are
worthless to us now (except in the case of Pierce) and
might as well not have happened.  



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html