[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Celtics' Stuff ] Don't get the detractors

At 07:18 PM 2/22/2004, Jim Hill wrote: 
>Even on the teleconference call he said specifically that you get the
talent and then you worry about chemistry second, as
>if they both operate in a vacuum with no effect on each other.

Kim,

Or you get as much quality talent as you can amass, and then, trade talent
for talent to piece a team together with chemistry.

It is harder to trade nominal talent for high talent, chemistry guys then it
is to trade quality talent for them.

From that standpoint, it makes sense what he said.

<Jim

But that's not what he said Jim, nor is it what I said. I didn't say he should trade for chemistry guys, I spoke of chemistry itself. While there's nothing in the above about Danny planning to stockpile talent to trade for them. Sorry, but to me that's just spin.

Chemistry comes from a bunch of things, and trading for specific chemistry guys is only one place. But as I pointed out elsewhere in my post, the current problem isn't that Danny's not going after chemistry guys, it's that much of what he's done is actively destructive of it. We see the disorganized, ruderless results every night now, making the improved talent look pretty bad. The two don't operate in a vacuum: bad enough chemistry can make good talent look bad, while having more talent around him can make a so called cancer the sweetest of teammates (e.g. DJ).

Back to Danny, I didn't include it in that post, but rather than any consideration of seeing better quality talent as a stepping stone to trade for quality talent chemistry guys, he pulled out the standard line that chemistry comes from winning. Implication that getting the talent is all it takes and then they will presto chango win and you'll have chemistry. THAT'S why I have concerns. I'm not saying it can't happen, but it's lengthening the odds to totally discount chemistry as nothing but being happy to win.

Kim