Re: Ford: GMs say Pierce no longer untouchable

[Kim Malo <kimmalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 08:49 AM 2/24/2004, Mark Piotrowski wrote:
> On Feb 23, 2004, at 5:07 PM, Kim Malo wrote:
> While that's certainly true Kim -- that on some level PP needs to just go 
> out there and do his job regardless of the conditions -- I guess my point 
> was that I'm not ready to trade PP mostly b/c I believe the problem is 
> conditions on the team rather than (as Mark B. was suggesting) something 
> indicative about PP as a player and his ability to "lead" this team.

Ah, this post is all a great relief as I'd thought of you as one of the 
ones on the list with better sense than what I thought I was seeing, 
particularly in not being quite so much of a blind Pierce jocker as it 
appeared <g>.
I agree with you about not being in a rush to trade Pierce (although that 
comes with a warning that "lets make a deal" talk on the whole bores me 
anyway), because he does offer things that are tough to find and yes I 
agree he could look much better in a different context. That being said, I 
don't agree that the conditions are the only problem - what they've made 
clear is that some of it is with him. The way he's handled the current 
situation shifts him down a notch of what even at his best he offers. And 
what if the context he needs isn't the one you want to set up for your 
team, expecially given that he's a max contract player, limiting who else 
you can bring in to pick up the slack for what he lacks? I think you have 
to at least still leave it an open option.

> Going back to the point about putting players in the position to succeed 
> -- which is what Ainge needs to do -- Paul's leadership is never going to 
> be like Antoine's.  He leads by playing at such a high level and taking 
> the pressure off of other, less talented players -- not talking, teaching, 
> cajoling like AW did.  The problem is is that PP hasn't been doing even 
> his own type of leading this year.  In some ways his play has been adding, 
> rather than taking pressure off other players.

Except for the fact that I think you'd do better to stop even talking of 
Pierce's leadership at all, because I really don't see any signs of any 
kind of it. That's not as big a criticism as it might sound, because lots 
of very good people aren't. But the fact that he doesn't seem to realize it 
and tries to act like one is a concern. Especially because it's not just 
the on court gimme the ball stuff, it's his attempts to play leader where 
I've seen him do things like lace into Marcus during a game beyond what was 
called for in that situation, backing up some earlier in the year media 
reports of his being, er, difficult as a teammate.

> Again i was trying to identify PP's strengths and maybe some of his 
> mindset -- i should probably have said he rightly knows that he's the top 
> offensive threat on this team.  However there is an important caveat:  it 
> has to be in  the context of the TEAM.

Yup, the lesson that MJ never learned until Phil Jackson arrived, resulting 
in things like he scores 60, team loses. At the same time, Paul also has to 
learn to recognize his own individual failings (see ball handling 
carelessness) and do something about them, something I'm not so sure he's 
willing to do vs find something else to blame them on.

> I think what we've seen this year is the worst of PP:  He's looking for 
> his offense in spite of the team rather than as a (the) key part of 
> it.  the most sublime games I've seen PP play are when he ends up with 40 
> pts and you never notice it.

Yes. Even games when he scores considerably less 'quietly'.

>  I think this goes back to not having a coach that knows what he's doing 
> offensively.

No. Again, you're deflecting all the blame from Pierce and also making 
assumptions about the coaches that I'm not sure are totally valid. There's 
a difference between not knowing what you're doing and doing it badly or 
what you want to do being the wrong thing (Obie's problem IMO).

>   I think PP thinks back to the 2001 season and says "we need me to score 
> 35 to win".  And he's partly right -- the Celtics DO need PP to score 
> 25-35 pts to win -- but it has to be the right way.
>
> In some ways its similar to the problem we had with Walker.  PP could get 
> 29 pts on 8-11 shooting, 10-11 FTs, 8 assts and 2 TOs or 38 pts on 10 for 
> 31 FGs, 12-15 FTs, 1 asst and 7 TOs  -- and I'd much prefer the former b/c 
> its more efficient and allows for his team to do more.

Actually you left off one of his best assets. Rebounding. Pierce is a 
superb rebounder for a guard, something I try to remind myself of when  he 
most frustrates me with lazy or dumb play. And you might want to add in the 
plus minus, where he plays the defense he's capable of, because that's also 
a big issue with him.

> Again maybe we disagree here -- but when PP is playing the way he 
> SHOULD/CAN play -- the PP of the ECF run where he just TAKES OVER a game 
> -- I'd put him in the top 10 players in this league (and I think he CAN 
> consistently play better than McGrady (though is a little less flashy) and 
> often does).  That was the other part -- put PP in a position to do what 
> he does best and you can't trade him b/c there is no way you'll get equal 
> value for him.

No, we don't disagree about what he can do, more about why he doesn't 
approach that more often and some broader issues about what's possible for 
him. Also, you might want to consider losing the equal value argument 
against trading him. That's essentially nothing but a straw man, even if 
you don't mean it as one, that gets used continually as if it had validity. 
That's not supposed to be the aim of a trade or the reason to do so. If all 
you're looking is to get the same back again, then why deal. The aim of a 
trade is to make the team better, which might involve getting back less 
talent **that fits better** and is more cap friendly or a million other 
variations.

Best
Kim