RE: It's only a matter of time before Iverson departs

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

But Mark, Peja doesn't have to carry anywhere near the load that Pierce
does.  I think that's one reason why Pierce attempts some ill-advised
moves which often result in turnovers.  Switch teams with Pierce and
Peja, giving Paul the talent surrounding Peja and those turnovers would
be greatly reduced imho.

Cecil

-----Original Message-----
From: Berry, Mark S [mailto:berrym@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: March 15, 2004 1:12 PM
To: celtics@xxxxxxxx
Subject: FW: It's only a matter of time before Iverson departs


Here's the thing about Pierce/Peja. If Pierce eliminates all his bad
habits, you have Peja. Neither is a great ball-handler or passer. Peja
doesn't try to be. Pierce does. Does that mean Pierce is better at it? I
don't think so. I think it's a credit to Peja that he plays within
himself. Neither is a good defender. Pierce is a better rebounder, but
that doesn't erase all the bad habits he has that Peja doesn't. Peja is
a much more efficient scorer who has evolved into more than just a
shooter. 

On Yao ... He's making the leap right before our eyes. He's not timid.
He's the only guy in the league who doesn't back down to Shaq. If you're
going to include LeBron, you have to include Yao.

Finally, Jermaine O'Neal ... He's probably closer to the Pierce group
than anyone else. He still lacks a go-to move. I only put him in that
top 11 because he's a big guy who can dominate a game. Those guys always
have more value and more of an impact on a game than a swingman.

As for Iverson, he had one dream season in a perfect convergence in the
Eastern Conference. He's a great talent, but everything has to be
tailored to him. Shouldn't a truly elite player make the other players
better? Instead, Philly has spent eight years trying to piece together a
team to fit Iverson. It was the same small-minded thinking that had
overtaken the Celtics. "Forget about talent, we want limited role
players who won't take shots/touches from our 'stars'." I hate that kind
of approach. You do that when you have Shaq or Duncan, not when you have
Pierce, Walker or Iverson. And to top it off, Iverson is aging and
starting to break down.

I love debating this stuff with you Josh. You're as nuts about it as I
am.

Mark

P.S. I agree about Shaq/Duncan/Kobe. They're the cream of the crop. I
think more of Garnett than you do, but I still think Shaq/Duncan/Kobe
are the best.



-----Original Message-----
From: Josh Ozersky [mailto:jozersky@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 11:34 AM
To: Berry, Mark S
Subject: Re: It's only a matter of time before Iverson departs

Mark, since we agree on practically everything, I don't
mind taking this up.  I think you underrate Pierce.  He
has played poorly this year, but as a talent, he's far above the
one-dimensional and unreliable Peja, the still-timid Yao, and the soft
and spotty Jermaine O'Neal.  Pierce and Iverson have been the Man on
playoff teams, and beaten other playoff teams by themselves when the
pressure was on.  (Which is more than KG can say.)  Iverson is a former
MVP who carried his team all the way to the finals, for pete's sake.  I
think you could make a lot better argument for Brand, Francis, and a
couple of others than the wimps you nominate as being better than PP and
AI.

Josh

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Berry, Mark S" <berrym@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <celtics@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 11:11 AM
Subject: Re: It's only a matter of time before Iverson departs


> Josh wrote:
>
>
>
> he's a top ten NBA talent.  (Shaq, Duncan,
>
> Kobe, KG, McGrady, Kidd, Nowitski, Pierce, Iverson, James)
>
>
>
> --- --- ---
>
>
>
> Josh, are you openly challenging me? This is a test, isn't it? Well, 
> I'll throw my two cents in (surprise, surprise ... )
>
>
>
> Top 10:
>
>
>
> Shaq
>
> Duncan
>
> Kobe
>
> Garnett
>
> T-Mac
>
> Kidd
>
> Nowitzki
>
> James (if not now, certainly within a year or two)
>
> Yao Ming (if we're projecting for LeBron, we have to do the same for
> Yao)
>
> Jermaine O'Neal
>
> Peja Stojakovic
>
>
>
> OK, that's 11, but those are the guys I'd consider clear upgrades on 
> Pierce and Iverson, who I lump in the next group along with guys like 
> Ray Allen, Michael Finley, Carmello Anthony, Baron Davis, Steve
Francis,
> Steve Nash, Mike Bibby, Elton Brand, Pau Gasol, Kenyon Martin, and a
few
> others. I'm not so sure I'm rating the point guards high enough. Steve

> Nash probably is the most valuable Maverick. Bibby is terribly 
> underrated (not underpaid).
>
>
>
> Anyway, Pierce is out of the elite group until he returns to 2001-02 
> form. In that top 11, by the way, there's a clear cutoff in my mind. 
> Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, Garnett, T-Mac and Kidd are the truly elite
players,
> with LeBron and Yao well on their way to joining that list. Nowitzki, 
> Jermaine O'Neal and Peja are a notch below because they don't make 
> everyone better -- the others do.
>
>
>
> As for the original point about Iverson, no thanks, and it has nothing

> to do with his tattoos. He doesn't practice (only Bill Russell ever 
> earned that right), is completely uncoachable, plays a style that will

> never result in a championship and has seen his best years. No way.
Not
> at the price it would cost to get him (think Pierce).
>
>
>
> Speaking of Pierce, it was nice to see him play better Saturday night.

> If he can continue to do that, the Celts are in good shape for the 
> playoffs and the future. If those games continue to be the exception 
> rather than the rule, they're in trouble. By the way, the difference 
> between the lottery pick that comes with missing the playoffs and the 
> pick as the last playoff team is shrinking. Right now it would be
three
> spots 11-14. With that difference, it's better to make the playoffs.
But
> a pick as high as seven still is within reach. In my opinion, the 
> worst-case scenario is what we see now - just missing the playoffs,
but
> playing well enough to miss out on a top-eight pick. I want them
either
> to make the playoffs, or go in the tank and get that high pick. One or

> the other. No in between.
>
>
>
> Mark