Buy low, Sell high?

Mon Jan 29 07:02:47 CST 2007

A couple of points that have come up over the weekend I wanted to chime in
on.

First, the debate of Pierce as part of the trade for Gasol.  It would be
wise to consider that Memphis has publicly stated they want to get 1.
younger and 2. shed salary in the pursuit of trading Gasol.  Which of those
stated goals would take place if the deal were FOR Pierce?  You would be
correct if you answered "neither".  When the board discusses its faux
trades, all I ask is that both sides of said trades are considered.  Memphis
wants youth (read: rookie contracts) and expiring deals; not newly re-signed
older swingmen.  They want names like Al "Rookie Contract" Jefferson dangled
for Gasol.  First round draft choices (preferably this year).  The real
debate of this board shouldn't be "who's better Gasol or Pierce" it should
be "who's better Gasol or Jefferson" because that's the guy that fits the
criteria Memphis is looking for.

Second, last night was the first night where the Celtics played the entire
game like they didn't give a crap.  The biggest argument against the "we're
actively tanking" debate has been that throughout (until last night) the
team really did play hard.  They didn't play exactly smart or fundamental,
but they played hard.  Perhaps the raging "tank" debate has finally reached
their ears and their hearts? Perhaps the novelty of actually playing now has
equally lost its luster to the kiddie corps?  The "beauty" of this losing
streak to a Brain Trust that does likely wish to tank is the injury excuse
paired with the inexperience excuse - combined together to make an easy
justification sound bite - "Tanking? Our young guys are playing their butts
off out there night in and night out. A couple shots here or there, a
defensive stop and we've won five or six of these games.  These kids are
making great progress. Al Jefferson has become the 20-10 player, stepping up
in Paul Pierce's absence, playing hurt."  See how easy that was to turn the
negative question into a "positive" comment leaving the very word "tank" as
a set up for the spin of development? 

Lastly, just a moment to rant here...the draft lottery is the dumbest
invention ever devised.  What other pro sport creates a system wherein the
least deserving team could conceivably gain the best overall pick?
Obviously, the argument has been "it'll prevent tanking".  HA!!!  That sure
seems to have worked this year for Boston and Memphis and to a lesser degree
Philadelphia hasn't it? The greatest asset to pro football's success is the
belief that regardless of how a team finishes any given year that through
free agency and the draft that a team can go from worst to first (there is
an example, or two, every single year - take New Orleans and the Jets this
year).  Wouldn't a commissioner WANT that belief to be fostered? A draft
lottery contributes (as does the low number of players per team and the
worst cap system known to man) to a prolonged rebuilding process by
integrating luck as a factor.  It does nothing to prevent teams from
"tanking" and it sure as heck does little to give fans hope for the future
which in turn means at least some continued interest in a team despite a
losing campaign.  And from an entire league standpoint (which is what Stern
is supposed to be looking out for right?) does a couple teams tanking hurt
the league or hurt those teams? 

I know it won't change as long as "Don" Stern is in charge, but I do believe
a good first step to trying to get parity in basketball is number one to get
rid of the draft lottery and institute a draft based on record.