Re: I think Danny screwed up

[Kim <kimmalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Excellent points (although it wasn't just the number of big men we had, it was also concerns about where we could play him because of his own lack of height with a PF game in a SF body), although I've one slight nit to pick and it may be me misreading what you meant. In which case I apologize in advance. Hunter hasn't been showing lately that he was ready to play at the beginning of the season, he's shown that he's ready to play more now and maybe was a bit earlier. This really is a much improved version of the player we saw with his earlier scattered minutes, with too many turnovers, bad shots, fouls, getting beat on defense etc. He got rebounds back then, but there were more negatives to offset against them, most of them reminiscent of some of the bad things he also showed glimpses of with the good in summer league. Probably the the most impressive things about the last few games, taking the rebounds as a given, are how few mistakes he's made and how much more he's getting to the line than sending people there, especially given the type of game he plays.
Kim

-----Original Message-----
From: Snoopy the Celtics Beagle <snoopy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Feb 28, 2004 8:23 PM
To: Celticsstuffgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, celtics@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: I think Danny screwed up

You have to remember the situation when we got him--we had--back 
then--enough big men that Hunter was not realistically going to see playing 
time this season at all.  His excellent play in training camp got him the 
contract he now has.  Back then, Vin Baker was looking like comeback player 
of the decade, and the team that went to the playoffs was pretty much the 
same--Danny didn't start decimating the roster until just before the start 
of the regular season, by which time it was too late to think of Hunter 
getting a three year contract.  Even as late as January, there was no sign 
that hunter would see anything more than periodic garbage time this year.

Back then, Hunter was making comments to the effect that he felt he was 
ready to play at the beginning of the season, a rather brash statement even 
from a talented rookie.  Thing is, in the last two games, he's been backing 
it up.  Still, I want to see how well he does when the Lakers have Shaq 
parked in the paint.  If he can block out and rebound against O'Neal, I 
will cheerfully endorse his permanent inclusion in the starting lineup.

At 08:05 PM 2/28/2004, Celtic4Hire@xxxxxxx wrote:

>This is something I never understood. Accordingly to Hoopshype, Hunter is on
>a two year contract which I think puts him in the same boat. If this is true,
>why would you ever sign a player to anything other than a three year contract
>when he is making the minimum? If the guy doesn't turn out, you just waive 
>him
>and you would only lose a million at the most. But is he does turn out and
>you are limited on what you can offer him, just plain poor planning. I think
>Danny screwed up here....
>
>DJessen33
>
><< Feather-in-cap
>  kudos go to Cleveland general manager Jim Paxson, who quietly signed Carlos
>  Boozer to a three-year contract when the power forward from Duke slipped
>into the
>  second round of 2002 draft. As a result, Cleveland doesn't have to sweat
>  losing Boozer like Golden State did with Gilbert Arenas, and like San
>Antonio and
>  Detroit are sweating now with Manu Ginobili and Mehmet Okur, respectively.
>  Because Ginobili and Okur originally signed two-year deals, their teams are
>  limited in the amount they can raise those players' salaries unless they 
> are
>under
>  the salary cap. Which is why the Spurs and Pistons have been maneuvering so
>  frantically to be well under. ... Sacramento's Vlade Divac, on his recent
>flurry
>  of games with double-digit dimes: "I can't jump, but I can assist."  >>

Snoopy the Celtics Beagle
Please visit the <http://www.celticsbeagle.net/>Celtics Beagle Website