Re: ''You wonder where Ainge is taking the Celtics'' - MacMullan (Globe)

[Kestutis.Kveraga@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Kestutis Kveraga)]

--- You wrote:
I can only refer you to the Patriots ... few stars but the right pieces.  
--- end of quote ---

Well, football may be different. I don't know enough about it to judge. In
soccer, you can put 11 disciplined, hard-working, fit guys on the field and eke
out 0-0 draws and 1-0 wins, if you're lucky, against superior talent. Which is
basically what Obie and others like him tried to do in the NBA. But NBA is a
talent league, each player's contribution is much more important, and teams
composed of "five plumbers" can only succeed in not losing a lot, but not in
winning a lot.  
 
--- You wrote:
Look,
Eric Williams is only a symbol in all this and you know I was never an 
Obie fan.  But if Ainge retained Obie (his first decision) he should have 
then 
brought Obie new guys Obie could work with.  If he did not approve of 
Obieism, then he should have brought in a coach he did approve of.  
Seems to me Ainge has caused all of this ugliness.  He has swallowed 
the bait for any "good deal" no matter how it fit into our present OR 
future scheme.  
        "I'll think about that tomorrow."  - Scarlet Ainge
--- end of quote ---

Ok, so he made a mistake - or was forced into it by the owners. 
But it's over now, and the owners even get to save some cash. Ainge planned for
this to be the developmental year anyway. Sure, it coud've been handled better,
but it's not like we went over the cap by $50M for the next 10 years, or traded
away Tim Duncan and Lebron James. 
As for deals that don't "into our present OR future scheme", what exactly do
you have in mind?

--- You wrote:
You just can't enter as a bull in the china shop and hope to retain team 
unity, loyalty, or fan support. Nor can you exclude them.  As for the 
Celt "kindnesses" to Baker, a buyout is in the works to save face/legal 
ramifications on the seedy deal they set up with him when he and 
his proud family were at their lowest ebb last season.  After all, 
alcohol abuse is not listed on the CBA contract of no-no's and such
an agreement could cause lots of legal crapola.  Wyc, Ainge, etc. 
knew that but tried to pull a fast one. 
--- end of quote ---

I thought Ainge wasn't with the team yet, when they pulled that "seedy deal"?
Or is he guilty by philosophical association, as in 'he would have done the
same if he were here'? And the deal is  seedy only if you believe that players
should get paid their $16M a year even if they are out on the dry-out farm for
most of their contract. I'm no lawyer, but if the agreement they signed with
Baker were not legally enforceable, the Players' Association undoubtedly would
have challenged it in court. They haven't. The owners merely got Baker to sign
for what should be, but isn't, in the CBA. And if it didn't have to go into
arbitration, with its unpredictable and binding consequences, they surely would
cancel Baker's contract outright, as they should. They're just trading some
money for the elimination of uncertainty and hassle, while at the same time
appearing reasonable. They're basically buying an insurance policy, which is
probably a rational decision in these circumstances.   

--- You wrote:
 They will still come out of 
it pretty well as Baker was never worth his full contract sober or not.  
Now if they could only fill a few more seats with the product they 
have put on the floor for us including the Jumbotron, loud fan 
promotions, and hyper people-person Willie May or may not.
--- end of quote ---

I'm a lot happier with this product (i.e., players with potential trying to
play team basketball) than I would be watching EWill, Toine, and McCarty eke
out a few more wins playing that dreadful style and going nowhere. Just in case
I haven't made it clear enough before. 
Kestas