Trade

[Berry, Mark S]

Um ... so you'd keep the pick?

Just kidding. I loved this rant. Very well done. Do you feel better? I
hope you feel better. 

Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: celtics-bounces at igtc.com [mailto:celtics-bounces at igtc.com] On
Behalf Of Kestutis Kveraga Adv04
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 2:25 PM
To: celtics at igtc.com
Subject: RE: Trade

--- You wrote:
Put aside for a second the fact that Ainge, Niednagel and Co. are
running the team. Looking at this team where it is now, what do you
think is the best course of action? What do you do with the pick? With
Pierce? Who are your keepers? 
--- end of quote ---

I don't see how you can put aside the fact that Grouspaingel are running
the
team. It's like putting aside the salary cap and the guaranteed
contracts; it's
playing fantasy GM. I know it's very popular on this and other boards,
and
probably paliative given the current debacle, but it's not me. 

Furthermore, I don't think questions about whether Pierce and/or the
pick should
be traded can be considered in the abstract. It would be along the lines
of
Wyc's declaration that they have removed Telfair's nameplate from his
locker -
puerile behavior, a "faith-based initiative" without considering what's
actually
involved. 
It all depends on the particulars, some of which are "known knowns", and
some of
which are the infamous "unknown unknowns". 
 
For example, let's say Wyc & Co. decide that the key to salvation is
trading
Pierce (unlikely, given their desperate housewives' taste for sharing
tight
spaces with this particular petable thoroughbred).  The only way you
come out
ahead is by trading for some high-risk unknowns (i.e., future picks) and
then
getting lucky (Kim, there's an implicit assumption here that all salary
cap
rules are being strictly met by fillers/trade exceptions etc.). Nobody
is going
to trade you a significantly better player or a pick with a high
probability of
being better (e.g., Durant).  And, by "better", I mean some sum of
ability and
probable career span.  Thus, you can make only incremental improvements
by
getting a similar-caliber star that FITS better or a budding star that
may turn
out to be better in the future and has a longer career span.  

The latter route involves not contending for anything anytime soon and
staying
in the dreaded lower middle class. The former involves getting even
worse for a
while and playing the lottery (with the additional unknown that its
rules may
change).  

I seriously doubt these image-conscious and revenue-obsessed SOBs will
have the
balls to get even worse.  I think they will ride Pierce until he  is
about to
collapse, snowing us with sweet promises about this or the other kid
becoming a
superstar -  ma~nana, and distracting the already juvenile  TD Vault set
with
bigger and louder Jumbotrons, blonde bimbos, and more trinket giveaways.
Much
cheaper and easier than building a serious basketball team.

Oops, I think I just slipped into another diatribe. 

Anyway, the same goes for trading the pick(s) for a veteran, only the
uncertainty is greater on the giving end (i.e., we aren't sure what we
are
potentially losing by trading the pick(s)). Moreover, given Ainge's
record on
trades (and the Wycked resistance to taking on richer contracts), I'd
rather
just roll the dice with the draft, given that a) it's Ainge's best
ability and
b) we get a young cheap player or two we might luck out on. That might
do enough
to make the team competitive enough to keep Pierce from carterizing.
Then wait
and see how the situation evolves with Pierce and other potentially
obtainable
stars around the league. At some point, a disgruntled star might become
available  at a significant discount and Ainge better be ready with the
right
package for the fire sale.  

I wanted to say that a stable, character-guy, defensive-minded veteran
must be
signed with the mid-level exception to stabilize the team (and Pierce)
further,
but then I remembered that we're dealing with a bottom-feeder bunch here
and
that the selection of suitable candidates is vetted by a shaman con
artist.  And
any FA finding it necessary to kiss the said shaman's fur-covered behind
(a
necessary and sufficient proof of being of the "right brain type") isn't
likely
to help us much (see Googs, Veal). 

In retrospect, I don't know what was worse - the coronation of Pitino
followed
by the relatively swift realization that the emperor had no clothes, or
the
elation with the acquisition of the team by a bunch of "true fans" (or
so it
seemed at the time) and the hiring of a smart, articulate "true Celtic"
(or so
it seemed at the time), followed by a slowly dawning thought that the
franchise
is owned and managed by a bunch of unethical, mendacious, incompetent
a-holes. I
guess the chosen profession of the owners and the towel thrown in
Ainge's face
should have alerted me that we're not dealing with a bunch of Boy Scouts
here,
but I was too excited after the reign of Thanksdad, Pitino, and Wallace
to cooly
consider the implications of these facts. 

If the team has to be owned by modern-day pirates, I'd prefer to have a
Russian-born oligarch (or an American counterpart, a Mark Cuban type) as
the
owner. At least these guys KNOW that this is simply a costly toy and are
not
trying to squeeze every last penny out of it.  Roman Abramovich, the
Russian-born oligarch owner of Chelsea FC, one of 5 best (and not
coincidentally, most expensive) soccer teams in the world once said, in
response
to a question about his profligate spending on Chelsea, that he knows
many
better ways of making money than owning a sports team, and that Chelsea
is
simply a pleasant diversion, not a money-making enterprise.  And I am no
fan of
oligarchs, of any nationality. 

Anywhere, somewhere in there among my angry asides is the answer to your
question, Mark. I don't think there are any quick solutions, even if we
had a
free-spending owner and the wisest GM (that's one of the problems with
Ainge -
he may be smart, but he is not wise). That's just the nature of the
sport and
the league - getting that franchise-changing player is THAT important
and hence,
THAT difficult. Unless you're lucky and/or have planned extremely well
and are
otherwise a desirable NBA destination - none of which applies to Boston
- it
will be many years before there is any realistic chance of competing for
a
title. Moreover, it will require change at the very top of the
organization. The
teams that have had sustained success invariably have excellent GMs.
Excellent
GMs are not easy to come by, either, and acquiring one requires a
perceptive,
generous owner with some integrity and wisdom (good people tend to work
for
other good people). It all goes back to the top. Fish rots from the
head, and I
can easily smell it across the harbor in Charlestown. 
Kestas










_______________________________________________
The Boston Celtics Mailing List
celtics at igtc.com
http://www.igtc.com/mailman/listinfo/celtics