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

[JB <jim_metz@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Feb 23, 2004, at 12:42 AM, Kim Malo wrote:

> 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
> **************
	It is a tired old saw. Parcels certainly goes out and brings in a few 
key guys to start any resurrection project he's working on. Paul Silas 
traded Mihm and Davis for three players that are hardly playing, in 
order to start winning in Cleveland and it's worked.
	One more analysis of Jimmy O'Brien; he would not give minutes to 
players who wouldn't put out defensively. That was his standard and 
everything started with that. If you (Blount, McCarty, Battie, 
Williams) gave him that effort, you played. It was that simple and 
effective enough, to have a winning record and make the playoffs, 
regardless of how  few offensive players he had on the floor.
	I believe one of the reasons he left, was because fewer and fewer 
players were listening to him. Of course the trades and all, but even 
Pierce had tuned him out a bit. Paul perhaps had excuses, but I don't 
think he was putting the defensive effort, while coach was publicly 
telling him he didn't have to try to do everything offensively, he 
still insisted he had to.
	Larry Bird's three year rule, was never more precise. Doing  the math, 
  O'Brien's  regular season record with the Celtics  was 139-119 (258), 
just about three seasons worth, which would be 246.
	JB
Unchain My Heart!

*******************
	Date: 	February 23, 2004 12:42:36 AM EST
	From: 	  kimmalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
	Subject: 	Re: [Celtics' Stuff ] Don't get the detractors
	To: 	  celtics@xxxxxxxx

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