RE: bewildered

["Wright, Cecil" <Cecil.Wright@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am not replacing Raef with Blount because of talent/ability.  It is
strictly a financial move.  Blount will be much more cost effective than
Raef.  Who knows if he will ever return to 100% after this injury.  Are
you willing to pay that much dough for a player who may play the rest of
his career in pain which limits his mobility and effectiveness?

I'll take my chances with Blount, Mihm, Baker and Perkins which combined
might cost you the same amount as Raef.

Cecil

-----Original Message-----
From: Enrile, Roy [mailto:renrile@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: March 02, 2004 2:03 PM
To: celtics@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: bewildered


Just because Blount had one great game with out of character numbers,
he's not a different/better player and I wouldn't protect him over
Lafrentz.  Honestly Bruno would have scored 20 last night with the way
Steven Hunter ran away from Blount every single time to help others on
D.  Mark just made open layups, nothing special.  I'm proud of him for
the rebounding though(thanks for the team motivation Brandon).

The reason Raef should be protected first, is he's the better player in
every category and always will be.  He's more mobile and coordinated,
has always had better hands, and rebounded better than Blount.  Plus
he's reliable for spacing the floor so Pierce/Davis can play a midrange
game w/o being crowded.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-celtics@xxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-celtics@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Wright, Cecil
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 5:38 AM
To: celtics@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: bewildered

I think that Raef must be left unprotected.  It's a tough call on
Chucky/Banks.  I'm not sure Danny will want to leave his #1 pick
available to be plucked, especially after having said that it takes
point guards a few years to blossom.

On the list below, I would insert Blount as a keeper and remove Raef.

Cecil