In today's ESPN Insider (no link because subscription is required), Chad Ford lists the Celtics as one of the teams that screwed up by passing on Chris Paul.
Apparently, according to Ford, sources from both the Celtics and Trailblazers have confirmed that both teams were talking about a trade of Paul Pierce to Portland for the No. 3 pick in the draft and the nonguaranteed contract of Nick Van Exel. Ford claims that "The Blazers would've done it in a heartbeat, because they had coveted Pierce for some time and felt they already had their point guard of the future in Telfair."
Ford concludes that the Celtics made a mistake by passing up on this deal, and I agree. It is exactly the sort of deal Boston needs to consider at this point--trading a high-priced player in his prime for a youngster who could become a cornerstone of a championship squad. Paul's performance thus far makes clear how big of a mistake the Celtics made.
In his article, Chad Ford echoes my sentiments about the state of the Celtics:
"As it stands, the Celtics are running to stand still. Eventually players such as Jefferson, Kendrick Perkins and West are going to be good. But by the time they get there, will players such as Pierce and Wally Szczerbiak (who are both 28) still be good enough to help them win a championship?"
I couldn't have said it better myself. Hopefully I can help M see the light!
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Opportunity Realized a World Away
Eli Saslow of the Washington Post has a nice piece today on Junior College coach Travis Steele of Valley College travelling to Nigeria to recruit talent.
However
Only 23, Steele had ascended to his position because of a reputation as a keen talent evaluator. But, in Nigeria, his initial appraisal hardly required expertise. He made his assessment seconds after the camp's opening whistle, having watched the players stand up and run to center court.
"They're huge!" Steele said. "This is unbelievable -- even better than I thought. I've never seen this many big kids in one room in my whole life."
Thirty of the players stood at least 6 feet 9, and a half dozen eclipsed 7 feet. Many of them, all ages 14 through 18, would grow taller still. When they ran through layup drills, several players slapped their hands against the backboard without needing to jump.
However
Nigeria lacks the resources, though, to develop that talent, a reality that became clear to visiting coaches during the first session of camp. As a warmup, campers were asked to do the three-man weave, a drill that requires three players to pass to each other while running the length of the court. In the United States, it's a basic exercise common to most middle schoolers. In Nigeria, it's a foreign concept that quickly devolved into disaster.
During an hour spent on the three-man weave, only a handful of groups made it down the court without dropping the ball. Jarrin Akana, an assistant coach for the Denver Nuggets, watched and shook his head in dismay. "Some of these things are just so new to them that it's almost like teaching little kids," he said.
Simmons chat
In what is becoming an internet-standard format, Bill Simmons answers questions written by Celtic fans over at CelticBlog.
Despite making fun of some of his past basketball writing I give Simmons full props for calling Delonte West prior to the 2004 draft. Of course, my father predicted the Sox would win the World Series, too, which shows that if you make the most optimistic prediction possible with the Sox you're right about once every 86 years.
Despite making fun of some of his past basketball writing I give Simmons full props for calling Delonte West prior to the 2004 draft. Of course, my father predicted the Sox would win the World Series, too, which shows that if you make the most optimistic prediction possible with the Sox you're right about once every 86 years.
Sox get A-Gon.
Long after the pain of tonight's Celtics game is gone, Alex Gonzalez will be playing shortstop for the Red Sox. Long, as in like a year.
Monday, January 30, 2006
How fast can goodwill fade?
Watching the Timberwolves demolish the Celtics in what is turning into an ugly, ugly game a few thoughts go through my mind
1) While I have seen plenty of teams blow out the Celtics in recent years I have rarely seen a team enjoy it so much. Minnesota played Blount, Banks, Reed and Davis together for a stretch at the end of the third and it might as well have Christmas morning for all three. Highlights of Blount skipping down the court will surely be played repeatedly and do nothing to reduce his sissy reputation in Boston.
2) Can we guess the hours until the second-guessing of Ainge and this trade begins in Boston and among the national press? Gentlemen, synchronize watches...
3) Jefferson's weaknesses on offense were well apparent tonight. Against taller defenders (which is most power forwards) he doesn't have any reliable post moves that don't get blocked. Blount and Garnett have both been abusing him all game. His drop-step layup move was getting eaten alive. The Timberwolves also were well aware that Al doesn't pass out of the post once he starts his move, which meant he would start to make a move in single coverage and be triple teamed before he could get the shot off.
4) It doesn't help that Banks is the prototypical PG that Delonte West can't guard. For the record I think Banks is out of the NBA in 3-4 years. But Delonte might as well have taken a seat in the front row for all he was doing to keep Banks from the hoop.
Can the Celtics keep it below 30 points in the last 5 minutes? We'll see...
1) While I have seen plenty of teams blow out the Celtics in recent years I have rarely seen a team enjoy it so much. Minnesota played Blount, Banks, Reed and Davis together for a stretch at the end of the third and it might as well have Christmas morning for all three. Highlights of Blount skipping down the court will surely be played repeatedly and do nothing to reduce his sissy reputation in Boston.
2) Can we guess the hours until the second-guessing of Ainge and this trade begins in Boston and among the national press? Gentlemen, synchronize watches...
3) Jefferson's weaknesses on offense were well apparent tonight. Against taller defenders (which is most power forwards) he doesn't have any reliable post moves that don't get blocked. Blount and Garnett have both been abusing him all game. His drop-step layup move was getting eaten alive. The Timberwolves also were well aware that Al doesn't pass out of the post once he starts his move, which meant he would start to make a move in single coverage and be triple teamed before he could get the shot off.
4) It doesn't help that Banks is the prototypical PG that Delonte West can't guard. For the record I think Banks is out of the NBA in 3-4 years. But Delonte might as well have taken a seat in the front row for all he was doing to keep Banks from the hoop.
Can the Celtics keep it below 30 points in the last 5 minutes? We'll see...
Tonight's Celtics/T-Wolves Grudgefest.
ESPN.com informs me that Paul Pierce and Ricky Davis are leading the Celitcs and Timberwolves in five of six categories:
Celtics leaders
pts: Pierce, 25.3
reb: Pierce, 7.6
ast: Pierce, 4.7
Timberwolves leaders
pts: Davis, 23.0
reb: Garnett, 11.2
ast: Davis, 5.3
Celtics leaders
pts: Pierce, 25.3
reb: Pierce, 7.6
ast: Pierce, 4.7
Timberwolves leaders
pts: Davis, 23.0
reb: Garnett, 11.2
ast: Davis, 5.3
What M Doesn't Get
This post is a response to an interesting comment posted by mmazzotta in response to my previous post.
I think M misunderstood the point I was trying to make in my original post, so I'm going to approach it from a different perspective: If the Celtics could magically make Wally Szczerbiak--and his contract--disappear from their roster, should they do so? The smart GM says yes, in my book.
I appreciate all of M's analysis as to why Wally slightly upgrades the Celtics' wing positions over the next few years (which is the life of his deal). My question is: why would the Celtics want to do that, if that means they have to take on more salary and lose draft position right now?
Think about it. He uses the Bulls as a comparison in his post. Would the Bulls want to add Wally to their team at his current price? Of course not, even if adding him meant that they'd get 5-10 more wins this season. The time for the Bulls to add overpriced veterans will be when their young nucleus matures, not now. The same is true for the Celtics. They would have been better off trading Davis+Blount to the Knicks for an expiring contract (say, Penny Hardaway) and some picks.
The reason his comparison between the Bulls and the Celtics is not apt is because the Bulls have figured out the analysis above and the Celtics have not. He's right that the teams are roughly in the same spot in the standings--maybe the Celtics will even overtake the Bulls now that they have Wally. I'll be cheering for them to do so.
But look at the two key differences between the Celtics and Bulls. First, the Celtics are capped out for at least the next three years, while the Bulls will be far under the cap in the offseason. The Celtics are paying far more, and losing the flexibility to add talent or resign their young players, yet have a slightly worse record. Second, the key players on the Celtics are already in their prime (Pierce, Wally). The Bulls nucleus (Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, Chandler, Nocioni, etc) are all in their early 20s. That gives the Bulls hope that their players will eventually develop into a championship-caliber squad.
But, M says, the Celtics have that young nucleus too. He lists Perkins, Jefferson, West, Allen, and Green as the young players the Celtics are developing. Personally, I highly doubt that group will ever become a championship-caliber squad. But let's say they will, in 3-5 years. What, then, is the point of winning more games now while they're still developing? All it means is that you get lower draft picks and lose cap flexibility in the short term.
In my mind, the Celtics just don't get it. Last season, they traded for Antoine Walker. This season, they traded for Wally Szczerbiak. Neither move puts them in the position to contend for the Eastern Semifinals, much less the Championship. Yet both of them excite fans who focus on winning now, and can only be defended on the basis of mildly upgrading the team in the short-term. What most fans miss is that upgrading the team in the short-term in that manner hurts the team long-term. The Celtics and their fans would be better off if their GM looked long-term instead.
I think M misunderstood the point I was trying to make in my original post, so I'm going to approach it from a different perspective: If the Celtics could magically make Wally Szczerbiak--and his contract--disappear from their roster, should they do so? The smart GM says yes, in my book.
I appreciate all of M's analysis as to why Wally slightly upgrades the Celtics' wing positions over the next few years (which is the life of his deal). My question is: why would the Celtics want to do that, if that means they have to take on more salary and lose draft position right now?
Think about it. He uses the Bulls as a comparison in his post. Would the Bulls want to add Wally to their team at his current price? Of course not, even if adding him meant that they'd get 5-10 more wins this season. The time for the Bulls to add overpriced veterans will be when their young nucleus matures, not now. The same is true for the Celtics. They would have been better off trading Davis+Blount to the Knicks for an expiring contract (say, Penny Hardaway) and some picks.
The reason his comparison between the Bulls and the Celtics is not apt is because the Bulls have figured out the analysis above and the Celtics have not. He's right that the teams are roughly in the same spot in the standings--maybe the Celtics will even overtake the Bulls now that they have Wally. I'll be cheering for them to do so.
But look at the two key differences between the Celtics and Bulls. First, the Celtics are capped out for at least the next three years, while the Bulls will be far under the cap in the offseason. The Celtics are paying far more, and losing the flexibility to add talent or resign their young players, yet have a slightly worse record. Second, the key players on the Celtics are already in their prime (Pierce, Wally). The Bulls nucleus (Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, Chandler, Nocioni, etc) are all in their early 20s. That gives the Bulls hope that their players will eventually develop into a championship-caliber squad.
But, M says, the Celtics have that young nucleus too. He lists Perkins, Jefferson, West, Allen, and Green as the young players the Celtics are developing. Personally, I highly doubt that group will ever become a championship-caliber squad. But let's say they will, in 3-5 years. What, then, is the point of winning more games now while they're still developing? All it means is that you get lower draft picks and lose cap flexibility in the short term.
In my mind, the Celtics just don't get it. Last season, they traded for Antoine Walker. This season, they traded for Wally Szczerbiak. Neither move puts them in the position to contend for the Eastern Semifinals, much less the Championship. Yet both of them excite fans who focus on winning now, and can only be defended on the basis of mildly upgrading the team in the short-term. What most fans miss is that upgrading the team in the short-term in that manner hurts the team long-term. The Celtics and their fans would be better off if their GM looked long-term instead.
NCAA scoutings reports, anybody?
Putting aside for a second the debate about whether the Celtics should even want to make the playoffs, how likely is it?
Two games past the midpoint of the season the Celtics are (as of this writing) 18-26. How many games would they need to win to get a 7th or 8th seed and sneak into first round annihilation? Well, lets look at how many regular season wins the 8th seed from the Eastern Conference has had since 2000
2000 - 42 (Milwaukee)
2001 - 41 (Indiana)
2002 - 42 (Toronto)
2003 - 42 (Milwaukee)
2004 - 36 (Boston)
2005 - 42 (New Jersey)
This is an interesting trend, since a popular story around the NBA for the last couple years has been the resurgence of the Eastern Conference. What these numbers suggest is that while Shaq going to Miami and Rasheed going to Detroit may have made the top teams better the hurdle you need to get over to make the playoffs remains about the same. With 2004 as an exception, crack a .500 winning percentage on the year and you have a good shot.
So let's say the Celts need to get one game over .500 to land the 8th seed. To finish the season with a 42-40 record Boston would need to go 24-14-- good for a 63% winning percentage-- the rest of the way. To put this in perspective, there are only 4 teams in the NBA who have played that well this year over half a season. Detroit, San Antonio, Dallas and Phoenix all have winning percentages above 63%. 26 other teams do not.
Here's the rub: should the Celtics play San Antonio- or Detroit-quality basketball over the second half of the season their post-season might be a lot more exciting than a perfunctory first round exit. Of course, if anyone reading this thinks it's going to happen they might want to place a call to Vegas. I suspect you can get excellent odds from a lot of people willing to bet against you.
Two games past the midpoint of the season the Celtics are (as of this writing) 18-26. How many games would they need to win to get a 7th or 8th seed and sneak into first round annihilation? Well, lets look at how many regular season wins the 8th seed from the Eastern Conference has had since 2000
2000 - 42 (Milwaukee)
2001 - 41 (Indiana)
2002 - 42 (Toronto)
2003 - 42 (Milwaukee)
2004 - 36 (Boston)
2005 - 42 (New Jersey)
This is an interesting trend, since a popular story around the NBA for the last couple years has been the resurgence of the Eastern Conference. What these numbers suggest is that while Shaq going to Miami and Rasheed going to Detroit may have made the top teams better the hurdle you need to get over to make the playoffs remains about the same. With 2004 as an exception, crack a .500 winning percentage on the year and you have a good shot.
So let's say the Celts need to get one game over .500 to land the 8th seed. To finish the season with a 42-40 record Boston would need to go 24-14-- good for a 63% winning percentage-- the rest of the way. To put this in perspective, there are only 4 teams in the NBA who have played that well this year over half a season. Detroit, San Antonio, Dallas and Phoenix all have winning percentages above 63%. 26 other teams do not.
Here's the rub: should the Celtics play San Antonio- or Detroit-quality basketball over the second half of the season their post-season might be a lot more exciting than a perfunctory first round exit. Of course, if anyone reading this thinks it's going to happen they might want to place a call to Vegas. I suspect you can get excellent odds from a lot of people willing to bet against you.
Sam Smith says Bulls should trade for Pierce
In today's Chicago Tribune (no link due to registration firewall) columnist Sam Smith revives some more Pierce to the Bulls talk and shows he hasn't been listening to R.M. very closely. Salary cap room and high draft picks? Pfffaw! Who needs 'em? Now's the time for Chicago to make a deal:
Listening to more knowledgable people than I talk, 2006 sounds like the kind of weak draft that might produce no players as good as Pierce. If I were Chicago I'd do a trade build around Gordon, Duhon and 2006 pick(s) for Pierce. If they could avoid taking Raef or giving up Deng or Hinrich they come out in good shape.
I remain a skeptic that any Pierce deal to Chicago will happen, however. Both sides value their own assets too highly.
Boston has a developing front line. The Bulls could put together the kind of package that could attract the Celtics--I believe Boston is looking to hit a home run with Pierce in a Garnett-type deal--and put in place the team that could move forward as a serious contender. I don't believe the Bulls will make a deal in the next month, but why hang onto all the salary-cap room and draft picks if you can get a star now, especially a veteran? As someone who doesn't have the job as general manager, I also don't risk losing it.
Perhaps Adam Morrison of Gonzaga or J.J. Redick of Duke will be stars in the NBA. They and Texas' LaMarcus Aldridge are considered the top picks along with another big guy from Europe named Andrea Bargnani. The way the Knicks are going, the Bulls could have one of the top picks, out of the Eddy Curry deal. But are any of those players the star the Bulls need?
The Celtics need a point guard. They like Delonte West, but more as a shooting guard. So consider this proposal: Chris Duhon, who has shown he can run a team and make a three-pointer, local favorite Ben Gordon from Connecticut, Eric Piatkowski and Tim Thomas (who have expiring contracts) along with the Bulls' No. 1 pick for Pierce and Raef LaFrentz. Gordon can score almost as much as Pierce, the Celtics would get another first-rounder--give them the Knicks' pick if they want top-five protection--they get their point guard and save tens of millions of dollars by getting rid of LaFrentz's contract. And in Szczerbiak, they now have a scorer who can be popular with fans to replace Pierce. And where have they gone with Pierce? The deal also works for the salary cap.
The deal would eat up all the Bulls' salary-cap room, but if you have the chance to get a player like Pierce who can carry a team for a quarter and draw a double team, you have to take a shot with the high-level complementary players the Bulls have.
If the Bulls wait until summer, would Al Harrington be that player? I doubt it. And LaFrentz, albeit overpaid, can be a serviceable big man who can shoot outside. With Tyson Chandler playing as he has lately, the Bulls could really be one top player away with a lineup of Kirk Hinrich, Pierce, Luol Deng, Chandler and a Udonis Haslem power forward-type they might get in the draft or free agency.
Listening to more knowledgable people than I talk, 2006 sounds like the kind of weak draft that might produce no players as good as Pierce. If I were Chicago I'd do a trade build around Gordon, Duhon and 2006 pick(s) for Pierce. If they could avoid taking Raef or giving up Deng or Hinrich they come out in good shape.
I remain a skeptic that any Pierce deal to Chicago will happen, however. Both sides value their own assets too highly.
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Danger: small samples sizes at work
So let's just assume I started this post with several sentences about the danger of thinking you can make meaningful observations based on a couple of games.
That glossed over, wasn't the whole point of the Davis-Szczerbiak trade supposed to be that Wally was a better offensive complement to Pierce if an inferior and unathletic defender? So am I allowed to think it odd that in the first two games of the new world order we're scoring about ~17 less points on offense than our season average and in turn holding the other team to about ~22 less points?
From a team that was scoring 98 points/game and giving up 100 points/game before the trade, the 84-79 win over Sacramento and the 83-79 loss to Milwaukee weren't quite what I was expecting.
Jus' saying.
That glossed over, wasn't the whole point of the Davis-Szczerbiak trade supposed to be that Wally was a better offensive complement to Pierce if an inferior and unathletic defender? So am I allowed to think it odd that in the first two games of the new world order we're scoring about ~17 less points on offense than our season average and in turn holding the other team to about ~22 less points?
From a team that was scoring 98 points/game and giving up 100 points/game before the trade, the 84-79 win over Sacramento and the 83-79 loss to Milwaukee weren't quite what I was expecting.
Jus' saying.
Mark Blount and minutes (part 3 in a series)
M., it's good to see from your post that we are moving ever closer to agreement on this point and that you are now agreeing that this trade didn't have much of anything to do with minutes.
There are still, however, two recurring themes to your argument that I’m going to push back on. These are:
1) that the Celtics should/would prefer to spread their minutes out among all the big men on their roster; and
2) that the team’s displeasure with Blount was having or going to have any effect on how much they played him.
Before I address both directly, let me take what’s going to appear like a tangent on player rotations.
How should the Celtics decide, over the course of the season, how to allocate minutes at the PF & C positions? Since their four best players (Blount, Raef, Al, Perkins) can more or less play either position we don’t need to worry too much about setting up different rotations for each position separately. We’re going to leave Gomes out of this discussion because 1) he’s only played 13 minutes in the last 17 games for a reason and 2) he just ain’t an NBA PF by any stretch. We’re also going to leave Veal out because he's so clearly worse than the four players listed above that he only makes it into games in garbage time, for situational match-ups and out of desperation. We’re also going to talk about the allocation of minutes on average, with the understanding that game-by-game things might vary a fair amount.
So how should a team divide 96 minutes among 4 players? Well— given that the most minutes that most big men play on a regular basis is around 30—you start by giving 30 minutes to your best player. By definition, since they’re your best player, every minute they’re on the court you have a better chance of winning the game then if one of your other/worse players were on the court. The same is true of your second best player, should a clear one exist. Playing them ~30 minutes a night will give you a better chance to win then giving some of those minutes to another/worse player. You can see where this is going.
So on average your chances of winning are maximized by having your best post player play ~30 minutes a night, your second-best post player play ~30 minutes a night, your third best post player play ~30 minutes a night, and dividing the remaining minutes among the scrubs.
What have the Celtics rotations looked like since the end of September? Blount has played 30 minutes/night, night in and night out. Raef has played ~24 minutes/night, Al and Perk ~20 minutes/night, Veal ~10 minutes/night. Well, this doesn’t look like what I just described. What’s going on?
Doc and Ainge have been giving quotes in the papers all season about how they’re waiting for some players on the team to step up and earn regular places in the rotation. Watching the games and looking at the minutes played it’s pretty easy to infer who they’re talking about. Mark Blount, for all his faults, has been the team’s best post player all season and is the only one to have a guaranteed place in the rotation. Raef, Al and Perk have all been inconsistent at best, so none of them have been either playing a regular 30 minutes a night or banished to the bench to watch someone else play 30 minutes a night. That Veal has gotten even 10 minutes a game shows you how often Doc has been desperate.
Now, back to this trade issue.
Given that Blount has been the best post player on the team and the only player that Doc has been comfortable enough to play starters minutes night in and night out, why would you move him to give more minutes to people who aren’t playing as well? If you want to get Al and Perk more minutes there’s a very simple solution—bench Raef. Bench Veal. You don’t bench your best post player (Blount) in order to protect minutes for your 4th/5th best post players (Raef, Veal) unless you’re deliberately tanking the season for a lottery pick. Doc and Ainge have been very clear they are not.
So was this trade in any way about freeing up more minutes for Jefferson and Perkins? No. Those minutes have always been there for the taking. The trade was about removing an unpopular player on a long-term contract who unfortunately happened to be the only post player on the team to earn starters minutes in Doc's rotations.
To address some of your specific quotes:
Exactly. And that’s exactly what Doc would do, if/when Al and Perk were playing well enough to earn those minutes and Blount still on the roster. And, psst, other than the players you mention here there are no big men on the roster.
Bingo. And this is exactly what Doc should and would do when the day comes that Perkins and Jefferson play high-quality NBA basketball for 30 minutes/night. The team wouldn’t play Raef and (dear god) Veal or Gomes over Blount for the reasons given above. Good evidence of this is the fact that the team hasn’t been playing Raef or Veal over Blount even though they’ve had months and months to do it.
Mmmm… Sentence #1 is certainly true but in no way implies sentence #2. If sentence #2 is true, I haven’t seen any evidence for it to date. Indeed Blount’s play and demeanor has been by all accounts better this year than last. The only thing that kept Doc from playing him 30 minutes a night over the last two seasons was the trade for Antoine Walker, which suddenly gave the team a better PF who promptly did play 30+ minutes a night.
I’m not sure why frees up is in quotes but again, I have seen no evidence other than Ainge’s understandable white lie that the team planned to play Blount less in the future. Ainge’s white lie can be discounted as exactly the sort of diplomatic, tactful thing that GMs say all the time about players they just shipped out of town.
There are still, however, two recurring themes to your argument that I’m going to push back on. These are:
1) that the Celtics should/would prefer to spread their minutes out among all the big men on their roster; and
2) that the team’s displeasure with Blount was having or going to have any effect on how much they played him.
Before I address both directly, let me take what’s going to appear like a tangent on player rotations.
How should the Celtics decide, over the course of the season, how to allocate minutes at the PF & C positions? Since their four best players (Blount, Raef, Al, Perkins) can more or less play either position we don’t need to worry too much about setting up different rotations for each position separately. We’re going to leave Gomes out of this discussion because 1) he’s only played 13 minutes in the last 17 games for a reason and 2) he just ain’t an NBA PF by any stretch. We’re also going to leave Veal out because he's so clearly worse than the four players listed above that he only makes it into games in garbage time, for situational match-ups and out of desperation. We’re also going to talk about the allocation of minutes on average, with the understanding that game-by-game things might vary a fair amount.
So how should a team divide 96 minutes among 4 players? Well— given that the most minutes that most big men play on a regular basis is around 30—you start by giving 30 minutes to your best player. By definition, since they’re your best player, every minute they’re on the court you have a better chance of winning the game then if one of your other/worse players were on the court. The same is true of your second best player, should a clear one exist. Playing them ~30 minutes a night will give you a better chance to win then giving some of those minutes to another/worse player. You can see where this is going.
So on average your chances of winning are maximized by having your best post player play ~30 minutes a night, your second-best post player play ~30 minutes a night, your third best post player play ~30 minutes a night, and dividing the remaining minutes among the scrubs.
What have the Celtics rotations looked like since the end of September? Blount has played 30 minutes/night, night in and night out. Raef has played ~24 minutes/night, Al and Perk ~20 minutes/night, Veal ~10 minutes/night. Well, this doesn’t look like what I just described. What’s going on?
Doc and Ainge have been giving quotes in the papers all season about how they’re waiting for some players on the team to step up and earn regular places in the rotation. Watching the games and looking at the minutes played it’s pretty easy to infer who they’re talking about. Mark Blount, for all his faults, has been the team’s best post player all season and is the only one to have a guaranteed place in the rotation. Raef, Al and Perk have all been inconsistent at best, so none of them have been either playing a regular 30 minutes a night or banished to the bench to watch someone else play 30 minutes a night. That Veal has gotten even 10 minutes a game shows you how often Doc has been desperate.
Now, back to this trade issue.
Given that Blount has been the best post player on the team and the only player that Doc has been comfortable enough to play starters minutes night in and night out, why would you move him to give more minutes to people who aren’t playing as well? If you want to get Al and Perk more minutes there’s a very simple solution—bench Raef. Bench Veal. You don’t bench your best post player (Blount) in order to protect minutes for your 4th/5th best post players (Raef, Veal) unless you’re deliberately tanking the season for a lottery pick. Doc and Ainge have been very clear they are not.
So was this trade in any way about freeing up more minutes for Jefferson and Perkins? No. Those minutes have always been there for the taking. The trade was about removing an unpopular player on a long-term contract who unfortunately happened to be the only post player on the team to earn starters minutes in Doc's rotations.
To address some of your specific quotes:
First, if you played Blount, Perkins and Jefferson 30 minutes a night each, using your formula of 96 minutes for the center and PF position, you'd have exactly 6 minutes to split between Raef and Veal, as you call him. And that would mean nothing at all for any of the other big men on the roster.
Exactly. And that’s exactly what Doc would do, if/when Al and Perk were playing well enough to earn those minutes and Blount still on the roster. And, psst, other than the players you mention here there are no big men on the roster.
Now admittedly, increasing Perkins and Jefferson's minutes doesn't have to translate directly into a reduction in Blount's numbers. You certainly could reduce Raef or Scalabrine or Gomes or all three
Bingo. And this is exactly what Doc should and would do when the day comes that Perkins and Jefferson play high-quality NBA basketball for 30 minutes/night. The team wouldn’t play Raef and (dear god) Veal or Gomes over Blount for the reasons given above. Good evidence of this is the fact that the team hasn’t been playing Raef or Veal over Blount even though they’ve had months and months to do it.
it's safe to say that the Celtics (both players and management) didn't much care for Blount and thought he was lazy. So, given that, the Celtics figured playing the pups more would translate into fewer minutes for Blount
Mmmm… Sentence #1 is certainly true but in no way implies sentence #2. If sentence #2 is true, I haven’t seen any evidence for it to date. Indeed Blount’s play and demeanor has been by all accounts better this year than last. The only thing that kept Doc from playing him 30 minutes a night over the last two seasons was the trade for Antoine Walker, which suddenly gave the team a better PF who promptly did play 30+ minutes a night.
I'm not saying that jettisoning Blount "frees up" minutes. It's simply that there was a basketball determination that the youngsters were going to play more, and that for a variety of reasons, Blount was the odd man out
I’m not sure why frees up is in quotes but again, I have seen no evidence other than Ainge’s understandable white lie that the team planned to play Blount less in the future. Ainge’s white lie can be discounted as exactly the sort of diplomatic, tactful thing that GMs say all the time about players they just shipped out of town.
Methinks you doth protest too much
Some of the sports journalists in Minnesota have only upped their rhetoric and criticism of the Davis-Szczerbiak trade in the last 48 hours. Sid Hartman of the Star Tribune now calls it one of the worst trades in franchise history.
An interesting research question: which other trades would make the list of worst in Timberwolves history?
After making one of the worst trades in franchise history Thursday -- acquiring Ricky Davis, Mark Blount, Justin Reed, Marcus Banks and two conditional second-round picks from Boston for Wally Szczerbiak, Michael Olowokandi, Dwayne Jones and a future first-rounder McHale's job could be in serious jeopardy at the end of the season if the deal doesn't work out.
The four Boston players acquired in the deal will not match the contributions that Szczerbiak has made to the Timberwolves, especially this year when he was playing the best basketball of his career.
An interesting research question: which other trades would make the list of worst in Timberwolves history?
Highlights of sports journalism (latest in a series)
In Sunday's Celtics Notebook, Mark Murphy of the Boston Herald observes
It takes some work to make at least one factual mistake per sentence but in this paragraph Mark pulls it off. According to the official box score of the game Green had 21 points and 5 rebounds, not quite a double-double. As no-one in the game had 30 points and 12 rebounds it's not clear where Mark got those numbers from. In addition, as handy dandy Ticketmaster directions available here point out, the Fayetteville Patriots play in the Crown Center of Cumberland County, North Carolina. Not Arkansas.
[Gerald Green] appears to be benefiting too much from his stint with Fayetteville (Ark.) in the NBDL. He had a 30-point, 12-rebound double-double Friday night.
It takes some work to make at least one factual mistake per sentence but in this paragraph Mark pulls it off. According to the official box score of the game Green had 21 points and 5 rebounds, not quite a double-double. As no-one in the game had 30 points and 12 rebounds it's not clear where Mark got those numbers from. In addition, as handy dandy Ticketmaster directions available here point out, the Fayetteville Patriots play in the Crown Center of Cumberland County, North Carolina. Not Arkansas.
Saturday, January 28, 2006
More on long-term finances
OK, I can see that our discussion of long-term team finances is going to go on for a little while longer. And once again I think M. continues to misunderstand the financial situation and choices that the team will face if they keep this roster for the next two years. What is the probability of this? Arguably low, since to date Ainge has made about one big roster-altering trade per season. Unfortunately, the three big contracts that will shape the team’s future salary picture are either going to be highly unattractive to other teams (Wally, Raef) or clearly the player the team is building around (Pierce).
To summarize M’s post, there is no reason to worry about our long-term finances if you:
1) Assume Perkins, Pierce and the future Celtic free agents will accept below market value contracts to stay with the team;
2) Ignore the additional cost of four first round draft picks (each starting on ~$1.5M+ deals) and any free agents signed in the next three years;
3) Assume that Blount would have stayed with the team for the length of his contract, instead of being traded sometime this season for a deal that comes off the books before the team needs to resign their current young talent;
4) Think that Raef or Wally may have any trade value to other teams before the final months of their current contracts;
5) Think that the Celtics owners ‘could and would’ pay tens of millions of dollars of their own money to bridge a year of playing Raef, Wally, and all the kids big money despite all evidence that to date they have adamantly prevented Danny from making any deals (e.g. Baron Davis at the trade deadline last year) that could have created additional costs to the ownership group;
6) Like the idea of having more room under the luxury tax in 08/09, despite that being 1.5-2.5 years after when the Celtics will need to resign their current youth.
It’s not particularly fair to line these all up, say that I either disagree or think unlikely all of them, and then walk away. A certain someone is on me to help clean the house, however, so for the moment I will conclude with this thought:
If the Celtics are currently supposed to be building a team that can compete for a championship in something like 3-5 years, why why why would you tie up 40% of your future room under the luxury tax in two players (Raef, Wally) that should realistically be expected to be no more than role players on a championship team?
Imagine you’re starting with a blank slate. Which players do you build around to create that future team? Most people’s lists-- based on public statements the team’s list-- start with people like Pierce, Perkins and Jefferson. If that’s the case why take on Wally and Raef’s contracts? Maybe they get you 5-10 more wins in the short term. So what? Why not clear out Blount, Davis and Banks for expiring deals; keep your salary expenses low enough that you are guaranteed to sign whichever of your own players you want to keep; have room to go after other free agents that you like, and add talent in the short-term through higher draft picks and Danny’s astute talent evaluation? This is the general strategy that R.M. spelled out here, and while not every championship team has been built this way (see the Detroit Pistons) it makes a lot of sense for the current Celtics. Since M. is clearly willing to trade Pierce for picks and young talent, he can't be that adverse to going this route ourselves.
Why aren't the real Celtics going along with this fantasty? I suspect part of the answer is that the Celtics owners are running a business they just paid top dollar for, with lots of healthy interest payments due to their financers. They need the revenue that comes with a somewhat competitive team (e.g. $1M for each home playoff game). I suspect another part of the reason is that Danny doesn’t want to get trapped in a cycle and culture of losing, where lottery teams beget lottery teams, full of talented players that don’t reach their potential.
I understand both of these motivations, and respect them to a certain extent. I’m just not sure it’s how I’d run the team.
To summarize M’s post, there is no reason to worry about our long-term finances if you:
1) Assume Perkins, Pierce and the future Celtic free agents will accept below market value contracts to stay with the team;
2) Ignore the additional cost of four first round draft picks (each starting on ~$1.5M+ deals) and any free agents signed in the next three years;
3) Assume that Blount would have stayed with the team for the length of his contract, instead of being traded sometime this season for a deal that comes off the books before the team needs to resign their current young talent;
4) Think that Raef or Wally may have any trade value to other teams before the final months of their current contracts;
5) Think that the Celtics owners ‘could and would’ pay tens of millions of dollars of their own money to bridge a year of playing Raef, Wally, and all the kids big money despite all evidence that to date they have adamantly prevented Danny from making any deals (e.g. Baron Davis at the trade deadline last year) that could have created additional costs to the ownership group;
6) Like the idea of having more room under the luxury tax in 08/09, despite that being 1.5-2.5 years after when the Celtics will need to resign their current youth.
It’s not particularly fair to line these all up, say that I either disagree or think unlikely all of them, and then walk away. A certain someone is on me to help clean the house, however, so for the moment I will conclude with this thought:
If the Celtics are currently supposed to be building a team that can compete for a championship in something like 3-5 years, why why why would you tie up 40% of your future room under the luxury tax in two players (Raef, Wally) that should realistically be expected to be no more than role players on a championship team?
Imagine you’re starting with a blank slate. Which players do you build around to create that future team? Most people’s lists-- based on public statements the team’s list-- start with people like Pierce, Perkins and Jefferson. If that’s the case why take on Wally and Raef’s contracts? Maybe they get you 5-10 more wins in the short term. So what? Why not clear out Blount, Davis and Banks for expiring deals; keep your salary expenses low enough that you are guaranteed to sign whichever of your own players you want to keep; have room to go after other free agents that you like, and add talent in the short-term through higher draft picks and Danny’s astute talent evaluation? This is the general strategy that R.M. spelled out here, and while not every championship team has been built this way (see the Detroit Pistons) it makes a lot of sense for the current Celtics. Since M. is clearly willing to trade Pierce for picks and young talent, he can't be that adverse to going this route ourselves.
Why aren't the real Celtics going along with this fantasty? I suspect part of the answer is that the Celtics owners are running a business they just paid top dollar for, with lots of healthy interest payments due to their financers. They need the revenue that comes with a somewhat competitive team (e.g. $1M for each home playoff game). I suspect another part of the reason is that Danny doesn’t want to get trapped in a cycle and culture of losing, where lottery teams beget lottery teams, full of talented players that don’t reach their potential.
I understand both of these motivations, and respect them to a certain extent. I’m just not sure it’s how I’d run the team.
Jefferson on Blount
Fascinating Globe article on Al Jefferson's take on Mark Blount. Here's a long excerpt:
''I grew to learn how Mark was last year, so it didn't really bother me this year," said Jefferson. ''But last year, it was more like, 'What's wrong with him? What's going through his head?' This year it was like, 'OK, that's just Mark.' Coach [Doc Rivers] said from Day 1 that he wasn't going to tolerate it. If Mark doesn't want to play, he'll sit him on the bench. Coach proved that a couple times this year by not letting him play and taking him out of the starting lineup."
When asked if he thought executive director of basketball operations Danny Ainge and Rivers worried Blount would become a bad influence on him and Kendrick Perkins, Jefferson said, ''That was the big thing right there, too. But no one can put a bad influence on me or Perk. I could have been around Mark Blount every day, could have shared a house together, but he wasn't going to have me thinking the way he thinks.
''But being a GM, I could see Danny, with two young players coming up who play the same position, thinking it would rub off. I remember last year I had a talk with Doc right before the playoffs about Mark rubbing off on me. I told him then and I tell him now, 'Nobody can just rub anything off on me.' I've got my own mind."
Clearly there was a long-standing concern from team management about Blount's attitude affecting team chemistry. So it seemed inevitable Ainge would deal Blount. Jefferson expects a more cohesive team with Blount and Marcus Banks, who was unhappy with his situation in Boston, gone.
''Like Doc said [to us], the trade will clear out a lot of negative stuff in the locker room without Mark Blount and Marcus Banks, who didn't really want to be here," said Jefferson. ''It clears the negative stuff out of the locker room and off the team, period. Ricky [Davis] didn't really have a negative attitude, but when things weren't going right, he would say something. Everybody would [in that situation]. So, you can't fault him for that. But Marcus and Blount didn't want to be here. I really didn't know Marcus didn't want to be here until I found out with the trade. I think now we can keep more positive about things."
Even though he will receive more playing time and more opportunities as a result of the deal, Jefferson saw Blount, Banks, Davis, and Justin Reed as the real beneficiaries of the trade. He wishes his former teammates well with the Timberwolves.
''In general, I think all four guys who were traded, it benefits them the most," said Jefferson, who had 13 points and five rebounds in 21 minutes last night. ''Justin really didn't see the court at all. He wasn't even dressed. In Minnesota, he will be given the opportunity to show his talent and play because he has great talent, great defense, and terrific offense. Mark will be somewhere where he's happy. Everybody knows when he's happy, when he's in a good frame of mind, he can play. Mark was not happy. Mark was ready to go. Danny was ready to make some big decisions to give me and Perk more playing time. Ain't nobody's feelings hurt. It worked out for Danny, me, Perk, and Mark."
Wally's Debut and Blount's "Minutes"
Seems like Szczerbiak provided some spark in his Boston debut, helping the C's pull away in the second half and pick up the win. Caught the last few minutes of the game, so I can't claim to have gotten a feel for the game. But after looking at the box score, I wonder how much of the victory was due the continued good play of Perkins and Jefferson?
Getting back to yesterday's posts, let's tackle the issue of "minutes", which B thought was a specious argument. Maybe my post wasn't clearly articulated, and maybe Danny Ainge is talking out of both sides of his mouth. But here's what I meant, and here's what I think the Celtics brain trust were thinking.
Blount is a lazy player, as evidenced by his dropoff in production between his contract year and the last year and a half. Bob Ryan says as much in his piece today.
I guess the simplest way of saying it is this -- they didn't trade Blount because otherwise they couldn't find the "minutes" for the pups. They traded him because they had already made the basketball determination that they were going to give minutes to Perkins and Jefferson. And hence, Blount wasn't goint to get a lot of minutes. And given that, shipping him and his $7m deal out the door was a good deal.
Getting back to yesterday's posts, let's tackle the issue of "minutes", which B thought was a specious argument. Maybe my post wasn't clearly articulated, and maybe Danny Ainge is talking out of both sides of his mouth. But here's what I meant, and here's what I think the Celtics brain trust were thinking.
Blount is a lazy player, as evidenced by his dropoff in production between his contract year and the last year and a half. Bob Ryan says as much in his piece today.
What an object lesson [Blount] turned out to be. Here's a guy whose whole shtick was that he had worked and worked and worked to make himself into such a useful and worthy player, so impressing the team that he was rewarded with the proverbial Big Contract at the conclusion of the 2003-04 season. He was never going to be an elite center, but at 28 it looked as if he could be a second-tier guy you could win with, a la, say, Jamaal Magloire or Rasho Nesterovic.So here are the Celtics, stuck with a $7m per year deal and a 7 foot center who rebounds worse than Moochie Norris. On the other hand, they've got two youngsters who essentially play the same positions that Blount plays, and are beginning to develop into legitimate NBA players. How far they'll develop is a legitimate question, but if you don't start playing them more, you're never going to know. So there's a basketball determination -- these guys are going to begin playing at least 20-30 minutes a game. And guys like Brian Scalabrine and Raef LaFrentz, who at least play hard, are going to be getting minutes too. So where does that leave your $7m per year underachieving 7 footer? With the short straw. And $7 million per year for four and a half more years is a lot of dough to pay someone for riding the pine.Of course, there is always a danger in pro sports of handing over the big guaranteed money. What if the guy pockets the money, retires, and never bothers to tell anyone? What if, in other words, he plays the way Blount has for the past year and 42 games?
You get sick to your stomach, that's what. And then you hope you can find someone who will take him and his suddenly ugly contract, which is still good for $28 million, plus a 15 percent trade kicker.
I guess the simplest way of saying it is this -- they didn't trade Blount because otherwise they couldn't find the "minutes" for the pups. They traded him because they had already made the basketball determination that they were going to give minutes to Perkins and Jefferson. And hence, Blount wasn't goint to get a lot of minutes. And given that, shipping him and his $7m deal out the door was a good deal.
Friday, January 27, 2006
More on the Celtics cap situation
Just so we're all on the same page, here's a clipping from Hoops Hype on the Celtics salaries for the next few years.
Let's keep in mind, as per my earlier post, that without a trade, the salaries would be essentially the same through 07/08, given that that's the year that Ricky's deal runs out. Let's accept B's figure of $60-65m for the luxury tax. Here's what we're looking at.
This year, the C's are pretty much near the luxury level, at $58m. Next year, if they don't sign any free agents, that figure drops to $52m. That's the final year of Perkins's contract. B says Perkins may be worth $10m. I don't see that based on his production. Blount had much better production in his "contract" year and landed a deal that began in the $5m range and averaged about $7m per year. But let's give B the benefit of the doubt and settle on about $7m for Perkins as the starting point for his next contract. Resigning Perkins for that number next year would put the Celtics right about where they are now -- $59m in payroll, just under the luxury threshold.
If the Celtics wait until the end of the 06/07 season and offer Perkins a qualifying offer, they can match whatever another team offers him. That contract would begin in 07/08. Then, even if you start at B's figure of $10m per year for Perkins, you'd still have only about $53m in total payroll, since the C's current projected payroll for that year is $43m. (Of course, none of this includes other addtions to the roster, etc., but you get the point.) Keep in mind that this figure would be the exact same for 07/08 if Ricky and Blount were still on the team, as that's the last year of Ricky's contract.
After that, all bets are off. Pierce is signed through 06/07 with a player option for 07/08. There's no guarantee that he's staying. And if he is, he won't be re-signed at the $16m+ figure that he is now. He'll be 32 and on the downside. The C's brass might even trade him next year, when they could acquire some expiring contracts and young talent/picks. In any event, it doesn't matter. Either way, the C's payroll looks to drop again 08/09, which is the year that they really have to begin paying Jefferson/West (the C's have team options in 07/08, and can re-sign them or make them qualifying offers prior to the 08/09 season.) It's tough to say exactly how much might be available to resign those two. It depends greatly on Pierce and Perkins. But here's the kicker.
Because the Celtics have shed themselves of one year of Blount's contract, they have much greater flexibility going into the 09/10 season. If managment was pleased with the direction of the team and wanted to resign both Jefferson and West even though it would send them over the luxury threshold, they could and would do it, because next year, they wipe $25 million off the payroll.
I might add that all this assumes that the Celtics won't make any more moves. Both Raef and Szczerbiak may well become atttractive to other teams as their contracts approach their end. Who knows. But I hardly think this is a cap killer (or luxury tax killer) any more than the Blount deal was. If anything, by shortening the contract, I think it gives the Celtics a lot more options for what to do with the pups.
All that being said, I think it's a waste of time to look further than next year, when the C's are in good shape to re-sign Perkins (and for far less than $10m). Everything after that depends on Pierce, and my gut says he's not staying. But even if he does stay, I think they'll be able to keep the big new three.
By the way, will email more tomorrow about B's post about getting rid of Blount for minutes, and R.M.'s post about rebuilding modes. In short, you both make good points and I partially agree with both of you. But I think there's some legitimacy to the minutes argument, and I also think there's some room for disagreement on rebuilding, particularly when you point to the Bulls as a "success" story. ;) As I said, more tomorrow.
My reaction, and the State of the Celtics
Here's my reaction to M's post. I wrote it before I read what B had to say:
I appreciate M's optimism, but I think the reality is that the Celtics traded one good contract (Ricky Davis) and one mid-level bad contract (Blount) for a much larger bad contract (Szczerbiak).
The only reason to make this trade is if you'd rather have Wally on the court than Davis and Blount. And let's say, for the sake of argument, that Wally is the upgrade that M thinks he'll be. That's not an unreasonable assumption. The question remains: what good does this minor upgrade do for the Celtics?
Even if Wally is a significant upgrade, the most that will happen is that the Celtics will end up with the #7 or #8 seed and will get wiped out in the first round. That is probably the worst result for the Celtics, in my opinion. Getting a low playoff seed is the difference between ending up with the 8th or 9th pick (with a lottery ball's chance at #1-3) or getting the 15th pick.
My view is that a smart NBA general manager will want his team to be in one of three situations:
1) A championship contender
2) A young team that is developing into a championship contender
3) A really bad team that will get high draft picks and has cap flexibility
All smart teams fit into one of these three categories. The Pistons are in #1, smart. The Bulls are in #2, smart. The Bobcats are in #3, smart.
The teams that are in bad shape are the ones that don't fit into any of these categories. They're teams that achieve mediocre success, with veteran players who will never contend for the title but yet eat up lots of cap space and assure that the team never gets a high lottery pick.
Right now the Celtics are one of those teams. I think some of the Celtics' young talent (like Al Jefferson) could eventually be part of a championship club. But the reality is that the team is saddled by big contracts (Pierce, LaFrentz, Wally) that eat up all your cap room, assure that the Celtics won't get high draft picks, and take minutes away from your young guys.
In my opinion, the Celtics have to make a choice. Are they going to compete for a championship with this group (good luck!), or are they going to rebuild? In my opinion their current directionless, halfway strategy ends up crippling the team long-term.
Reaction to the reaction (part 2)
Apologies in advance, this is a particularly long post.
In addition to what is a minor difference of opinion about the team’s motives for this trade, I have a more significant difference with M’s interpretation of the long-term financial ramifications. His argument for why we shouldn’t worry about Szczerbiak’s contract is as follows:
I’m afraid that I don’t see the ‘sign the young players and let Wally and Raef walk’ option as nearly as easy or likely as M. does. Indeed, I think it is much more likely that Wally and Raef’s contracts, should the team re-sign Pierce to an extension, will force the team to get rid of some or most of the young talent that currently has Celtics fans optimistic.
In part this is because I think that in this passage M. misses an important implication of the way that the end of rookie deals are structured. Each of the young players we need to resign (Perkins, Jefferson, etc.) have contracts that include a ‘qualifying offer’ before their final year. This means that at the start of the final year of those deals the players are restricted free agents. They can sign the qualifying offer, play out the year, and become unrestricted free agents. They can sign a new contract with their original team. They can also sign a similar offer with a new team that their original team has the right to match. As an aside, Ricky Davis' current contract is one that he originally signed with Minnesota as such a restricted free agent. Cleveland decided to match, later traded him to Boston, and now the Timberwolves have finally got their man.
In general, teams need to be prepared to resign players that are any good (as we hope all of our young talent will be) the summer they become restricted free agents. Otherwise a team that is significantly under the salary cap, like Atlanta did with Joe Johnson, will be tempted/likely to poach them. Players that aren't any good, of course, aren't nearly the risk to jump ship. But then if our youth doesn't turn into good players we have all kinds of other problems.
The upshot of this is that our young talent, assuming they turn out to be any good and assuming we don’t trade them in the meantime, will all need to be resigned to expensive, long-term contracts a year earlier that M. suggests. This is a problem.
I apologize that this will take a while, but here’s why:
The salary cap itself doesn't really matter here. The Celtics are over it, like most other teams. They will stay over it. This gives them the right to sign one mid-level free agent (currently ~$6M/year) each off season as well as a few league minimum (~$2M) end-of-bench types, should they want.
The real limit on the Celtics payroll has been the luxury tax cap, which is currently ~$60M. Teams above this cap pay the league dollar-for-dollar for the value of their payroll in excess of the cap. This can get very expensive for owners very quickly. Some owners (Mark Cuban, James Dolan) have historically been happy to pay the luxury tax. The current Celtics owners have not. In effect, Danny Ainge operates with a hard limit on team payroll that is currently about $60M.
The luxury tax is calculated by formula as a derivation of league revenues, which have been generally flat over the last few years. Even assuming the cap grows with inflation (and some expect it to actually decrease by $2M this next season) it's reasonable to expect that in 3-4 years Ainge will continue to have a hard cap of $60-65M in team payroll. For the sake of this discussion let's say it's $65M. [Aside: Those who are interested in learning more should consult the ‘Salary cap FAQ’ among the links to the right. It is an incredibly helpful source for these things.]
Three years from now Raef LaFrentz and Wally Szczerbiak will make a combined ~$26M. Paul Pierce (assuming he stays with the team) will need to be resigned to a new contract that would presumably start somewhere north of the $16M that is his player option in 07/08. If we assume Pierce is paid roughly ~18M in three years that would put payroll commitments to those three players at $44M, or two-thirds of the team's total permissible payroll.
The problem comes when we start to contemplate resigning our current youth.
- Kendrick Perkins, if he continues to progress the way he has over the last 18 months may well command a $10M+/year contract when he becomes a restricted free agent at the end of next season. Given the rarity of young talented centers in the league there will certainly be teams willing to sign him for that.
- Al Jefferson, Delonte West and Tony Allen will all need to be resigned in two and half years. If West and Allen make average starters money they may well be paid $7-9M/year. Depending on how Jefferson progresses it's not out of the question to imagine him commanding a $10-15M/year deal.
Taking the averages of these ranges it's not hard to imagine the total salary necessary to hold on to these 7 players totaling between $80-85M in three seasons. While Wally and Raef's expiring contracts may become attractive trading chits in the final months of those deals, that won't happen until 6-18 months after the team needs to resign its current young talent.
This $85M payroll would only cover 7 players, and not include possibly another ~$10M for the remaining rookie deals and end-of-bench players on the roster. Retaining all our youth, then, may require the owners to pay ~$30M in luxury taxes, straight out of their pockets. Pause on that for a second. $30M more in taxes for one season. That's a very steep bill to pay. Once Raef and Wally’s deals end payroll would drop to ~$55-60M, which should be below the luxury tax cap again. Except then there will be the pesky matter of Gerald Green hitting free agency.
We have heard Doc Rivers and Danny Ainge say in the past that they believe that the ownership group will be willing to open the checkbook when the time comes. Whether or not this is true there is no question that they haven't shown any willingness to do this to date.
If they're not willing to pay the luxury tax in the future, or some miracle does not relieve us of Raef's or Wally's contracts in 2-3 years, and the team is serious about retaining Pierce.....
Well, with this trade the team may well have kissed some if not most of Perkins/Jefferson/West/Allen/Green good-bye.
In addition to what is a minor difference of opinion about the team’s motives for this trade, I have a more significant difference with M’s interpretation of the long-term financial ramifications. His argument for why we shouldn’t worry about Szczerbiak’s contract is as follows:
Now let's get to the money, because in the end, it's all about the money to some degree.
So what you've primarily done is shorten the length of one of your unsavory contracts. In essence, you pay $6m more one year, and save $8m the next. If the issue is re-signing your young players, I say that doesn't make a huge difference in 2008/9, but it makes an enormous difference in 2009/10. Why, you may ask?
It just so happens that LaFrentz's and Wally's contracts are both up the same year -- at the end of the 2008/9 season. Pierce's expires the year prior. Depending on how the youngsters develop and what the Celtics decide to do, they actually have a lot of options heading into the 2007/8 and 2008/9 season, and a lot more than if they had kept Blount and his $8m deal. Should they decide to deal Pierce, they could acquire young players and expiring contracts, and use the saved money to pay the young guys. (Most of the young guys have team options through 2007/8 and qualifying offers in 2008/9; Perkins is the notable exception, with his options coming up one year prior.) Alternately, they could choose to sign their young players and keep Pierce, and simply let Wally and LaFrentz go at the end of the 2008/9 season. That would put them over the cap and probably into luxury territory for one season before taking $26 million off the books in 2009/10. Or they could do none of the above and continue to overhaul and tweak the roster with trades, etc., as they go along.
I’m afraid that I don’t see the ‘sign the young players and let Wally and Raef walk’ option as nearly as easy or likely as M. does. Indeed, I think it is much more likely that Wally and Raef’s contracts, should the team re-sign Pierce to an extension, will force the team to get rid of some or most of the young talent that currently has Celtics fans optimistic.
In part this is because I think that in this passage M. misses an important implication of the way that the end of rookie deals are structured. Each of the young players we need to resign (Perkins, Jefferson, etc.) have contracts that include a ‘qualifying offer’ before their final year. This means that at the start of the final year of those deals the players are restricted free agents. They can sign the qualifying offer, play out the year, and become unrestricted free agents. They can sign a new contract with their original team. They can also sign a similar offer with a new team that their original team has the right to match. As an aside, Ricky Davis' current contract is one that he originally signed with Minnesota as such a restricted free agent. Cleveland decided to match, later traded him to Boston, and now the Timberwolves have finally got their man.
In general, teams need to be prepared to resign players that are any good (as we hope all of our young talent will be) the summer they become restricted free agents. Otherwise a team that is significantly under the salary cap, like Atlanta did with Joe Johnson, will be tempted/likely to poach them. Players that aren't any good, of course, aren't nearly the risk to jump ship. But then if our youth doesn't turn into good players we have all kinds of other problems.
The upshot of this is that our young talent, assuming they turn out to be any good and assuming we don’t trade them in the meantime, will all need to be resigned to expensive, long-term contracts a year earlier that M. suggests. This is a problem.
I apologize that this will take a while, but here’s why:
The salary cap itself doesn't really matter here. The Celtics are over it, like most other teams. They will stay over it. This gives them the right to sign one mid-level free agent (currently ~$6M/year) each off season as well as a few league minimum (~$2M) end-of-bench types, should they want.
The real limit on the Celtics payroll has been the luxury tax cap, which is currently ~$60M. Teams above this cap pay the league dollar-for-dollar for the value of their payroll in excess of the cap. This can get very expensive for owners very quickly. Some owners (Mark Cuban, James Dolan) have historically been happy to pay the luxury tax. The current Celtics owners have not. In effect, Danny Ainge operates with a hard limit on team payroll that is currently about $60M.
The luxury tax is calculated by formula as a derivation of league revenues, which have been generally flat over the last few years. Even assuming the cap grows with inflation (and some expect it to actually decrease by $2M this next season) it's reasonable to expect that in 3-4 years Ainge will continue to have a hard cap of $60-65M in team payroll. For the sake of this discussion let's say it's $65M. [Aside: Those who are interested in learning more should consult the ‘Salary cap FAQ’ among the links to the right. It is an incredibly helpful source for these things.]
Three years from now Raef LaFrentz and Wally Szczerbiak will make a combined ~$26M. Paul Pierce (assuming he stays with the team) will need to be resigned to a new contract that would presumably start somewhere north of the $16M that is his player option in 07/08. If we assume Pierce is paid roughly ~18M in three years that would put payroll commitments to those three players at $44M, or two-thirds of the team's total permissible payroll.
The problem comes when we start to contemplate resigning our current youth.
- Kendrick Perkins, if he continues to progress the way he has over the last 18 months may well command a $10M+/year contract when he becomes a restricted free agent at the end of next season. Given the rarity of young talented centers in the league there will certainly be teams willing to sign him for that.
- Al Jefferson, Delonte West and Tony Allen will all need to be resigned in two and half years. If West and Allen make average starters money they may well be paid $7-9M/year. Depending on how Jefferson progresses it's not out of the question to imagine him commanding a $10-15M/year deal.
Taking the averages of these ranges it's not hard to imagine the total salary necessary to hold on to these 7 players totaling between $80-85M in three seasons. While Wally and Raef's expiring contracts may become attractive trading chits in the final months of those deals, that won't happen until 6-18 months after the team needs to resign its current young talent.
This $85M payroll would only cover 7 players, and not include possibly another ~$10M for the remaining rookie deals and end-of-bench players on the roster. Retaining all our youth, then, may require the owners to pay ~$30M in luxury taxes, straight out of their pockets. Pause on that for a second. $30M more in taxes for one season. That's a very steep bill to pay. Once Raef and Wally’s deals end payroll would drop to ~$55-60M, which should be below the luxury tax cap again. Except then there will be the pesky matter of Gerald Green hitting free agency.
We have heard Doc Rivers and Danny Ainge say in the past that they believe that the ownership group will be willing to open the checkbook when the time comes. Whether or not this is true there is no question that they haven't shown any willingness to do this to date.
If they're not willing to pay the luxury tax in the future, or some miracle does not relieve us of Raef's or Wally's contracts in 2-3 years, and the team is serious about retaining Pierce.....
Well, with this trade the team may well have kissed some if not most of Perkins/Jefferson/West/Allen/Green good-bye.
Reaction to the reaction (part 1)
I sympathize with most of M’s initial thoughts on the Wally-Davis trade, especially as pertains to Szczerbiak’s being an improvement to Ricky on the court. I’m not sure this is a big upgrade, but I concede that it looks like an upgrade.
There is one minor point that I will differ on, as it pertains to the team’s reasons for the trade
This has been one of Danny’s main talking points in the last 24 hours and is getting repeated over a lot of Boston. It sounds good, since it suggest the future is so bright we gotta wear shades. I don’t buy it, however. There are 96 minutes a night to be divided between the C and PF positions. If Perkins and Jefferson have been averaging 20 minutes/game this season it’s been because of their consistent foul trouble and erratic (to be charitable) team defense. Let's say they improve both of those and start to play starter's minutes, or ~30 minutes/night. Even then the team would still have ~30 minutes/game during which they’d need to play someone.
Would Blount be a better use of those minutes than Raef or Veal? Their performance this season and Doc's in-game decisions would both suggest yes. Doc's general meritocracy in allocating playing time this year suggests that more minutes for Al and Perk were there to be taken. Indeed, Danny and Doc have been repeating for two years that the worst thing you can do to a young player is to just give them playing time, without earning it. Now they trade away the competition and announce they’re giving the minutes to their youth.
I’m not making an argument for keeping Blount, since I’ve been as loud as anyone in wanting him out of town. The argument that he was limiting the growth or playing time of Perkins and Jefferson, however, doesn’t hold water.
The sad thing is that Blout was playing 30 minutes a night because, for all his flaws, he’s been the best PF/C and the third best offensive player on the team. This trade was about moving someone who was unpopular with his coaches and management, who was perceived as a bad role model and who had a long-term contract the team now regretted. The ‘freeing up playing time for Al and Perk’ line is tactful if dishonest way to avoid talking about that in public.
There is one minor point that I will differ on, as it pertains to the team’s reasons for the trade
Which brings us to the next beneficial part of the trade -- more playing time for Jefferson and Perkins. Clearly, the Celtics wanted to be rid of Blount and his contract. But a major part of that, I believe, was their feeling that they had some pretty good young players who were beginning to mature, and that playing Blount was retarding their progress. Given that, two thumbs up to getting rid of Blount.
This has been one of Danny’s main talking points in the last 24 hours and is getting repeated over a lot of Boston. It sounds good, since it suggest the future is so bright we gotta wear shades. I don’t buy it, however. There are 96 minutes a night to be divided between the C and PF positions. If Perkins and Jefferson have been averaging 20 minutes/game this season it’s been because of their consistent foul trouble and erratic (to be charitable) team defense. Let's say they improve both of those and start to play starter's minutes, or ~30 minutes/night. Even then the team would still have ~30 minutes/game during which they’d need to play someone.
Would Blount be a better use of those minutes than Raef or Veal? Their performance this season and Doc's in-game decisions would both suggest yes. Doc's general meritocracy in allocating playing time this year suggests that more minutes for Al and Perk were there to be taken. Indeed, Danny and Doc have been repeating for two years that the worst thing you can do to a young player is to just give them playing time, without earning it. Now they trade away the competition and announce they’re giving the minutes to their youth.
I’m not making an argument for keeping Blount, since I’ve been as loud as anyone in wanting him out of town. The argument that he was limiting the growth or playing time of Perkins and Jefferson, however, doesn’t hold water.
The sad thing is that Blout was playing 30 minutes a night because, for all his flaws, he’s been the best PF/C and the third best offensive player on the team. This trade was about moving someone who was unpopular with his coaches and management, who was perceived as a bad role model and who had a long-term contract the team now regretted. The ‘freeing up playing time for Al and Perk’ line is tactful if dishonest way to avoid talking about that in public.
More reaction to Where's Wally
So, I've been incommunicado for most of today in jury duty at Middlesex Superior Courthouse. Haven't had much chance to read through the various reactions to the Davis/Blount trade, but here are some more thoughts:
First, let's put aside issues of touches, chemistry, and other issues like that. Let's assume that Pierce is staying, that he's the top dog on offense, and that Wally will be option #2, much the same way he already was on the T-Wolves, and much the same way Davis was the Celtics.
Here's what Wally brings to the table -- he's a guy who spreads the floor on offense, who can knock down threes and mid-range jumpers, and forces teams to guard him on the perimiter. He can also occasionally take his man off the dribble. I'd call him a poor man's version of Ray Allen.
So the question becomes is he a better player for the Celtics than Ricky Davis? I think there's no question. Check out his stats -- he's a much better shooter than Davis (about 50 points higher FG% and 3PT FG%), and has similar rebounds and assists.* He's going to help spread the floor out for Pierce and West to penetrate, and also to prevent the defense from collapsing down on Jefferson and Perkins. And he's only 28. Assuming he stays healthy, Wally should remain a quality player for the duration of his contract as the younger players on the team mature.
Which brings us to the next beneficial part of the trade -- more playing time for Jefferson and Perkins. Clearly, the Celtics wanted to be rid of Blount and his contract. But a major part of that, I believe, was their feeling that they had some pretty good young players who were beginning to mature, and that playing Blount was retarding their progress. Given that, two thumbs up to getting rid of Blount.
Now let's get to the money, because in the end, it's all about the money to some degree. Let's check out Wally's contract and the Davis/Blount contracts. (One quick note: according to the guys on WEEI, Wally's contract calls for a 15% trade kicker... ouch. But so does Blount's, so the numbers will remain essential the same for the comparison below.) So let's take a look at the side by side numbers for each year.
2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10
Wally 10m 11m 12m 13m
R/B 11m 12m 13m 7m 8m
So what you've primarily done is shorten the length of one of your unsavory contracts. In essence, you pay $6m more one year, and save $8m the next. If the issue is re-signing your young players, I say that doesn't make a huge difference in 2008/9, but it makes an enormous difference in 2009/10. Why, you may ask?
It just so happens that LaFrentz's and Wally's contracts are both up the same year -- at the end of the 2008/9 season. Pierce's expires the year prior. Depending on how the youngsters develop and what the Celtics decide to do, they actually have a lot of options heading into the 2007/8 and 2008/9 season, and a lot more than if they had kept Blount and his $8m deal. Should they decide to deal Pierce, they could aquire young players and expiring contracts, and use the saved money to pay the young guys. (Most of the young guys have team options through 2007/8 and qualifying offers in 2008/9; Perkins is the notable exception, with his options coming up one year prior.) Alternately, they could choose to sign their young players and keep Pierce, and simply let Wally and LaFrentz go at the end of the 2008/9 season. That would put them over the cap and probably into luxury terrirtory for one season before taking $26 million off the books in 2009/10. Or they could do none of the above and continue to overhaul and tweak the roster with trades, etc., as they go along.
In short, I'm coming around to the thinking that despite the ugly outrageousness of Wally's contract, it's not the enormous albatross that it appears at first blush. It might even fit well with their long term plan. Plus, don't forget that Kandi-man's $5m comes off the books at the end of this year, and Vin Baker stops counting against the cap at the end of next year (to the tune of $5m per). And while that money won't bring in major free agents or anything, it might get something decent, or again, they could save it for the kids.
In the end, I'd give the deal a tentative thumbs up both on-court and on-the-bottom-line. I guess I just have one question left -- how much will we miss Ricky's D?
--------------
*It's a little unfair to compare Ricky and Wally directly, since Wally (when uninjured) plays a lot more minutes and is asked to do totally different things in their offense (Wally is a shooter on a team where Garnett runs the offense from the post; Davis was a creator in both Cleveland and here, even when playing with Pierce.)
First, let's put aside issues of touches, chemistry, and other issues like that. Let's assume that Pierce is staying, that he's the top dog on offense, and that Wally will be option #2, much the same way he already was on the T-Wolves, and much the same way Davis was the Celtics.
Here's what Wally brings to the table -- he's a guy who spreads the floor on offense, who can knock down threes and mid-range jumpers, and forces teams to guard him on the perimiter. He can also occasionally take his man off the dribble. I'd call him a poor man's version of Ray Allen.
So the question becomes is he a better player for the Celtics than Ricky Davis? I think there's no question. Check out his stats -- he's a much better shooter than Davis (about 50 points higher FG% and 3PT FG%), and has similar rebounds and assists.* He's going to help spread the floor out for Pierce and West to penetrate, and also to prevent the defense from collapsing down on Jefferson and Perkins. And he's only 28. Assuming he stays healthy, Wally should remain a quality player for the duration of his contract as the younger players on the team mature.
Which brings us to the next beneficial part of the trade -- more playing time for Jefferson and Perkins. Clearly, the Celtics wanted to be rid of Blount and his contract. But a major part of that, I believe, was their feeling that they had some pretty good young players who were beginning to mature, and that playing Blount was retarding their progress. Given that, two thumbs up to getting rid of Blount.
Now let's get to the money, because in the end, it's all about the money to some degree. Let's check out Wally's contract and the Davis/Blount contracts. (One quick note: according to the guys on WEEI, Wally's contract calls for a 15% trade kicker... ouch. But so does Blount's, so the numbers will remain essential the same for the comparison below.) So let's take a look at the side by side numbers for each year.
2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10
Wally 10m 11m 12m 13m
R/B 11m 12m 13m 7m 8m
So what you've primarily done is shorten the length of one of your unsavory contracts. In essence, you pay $6m more one year, and save $8m the next. If the issue is re-signing your young players, I say that doesn't make a huge difference in 2008/9, but it makes an enormous difference in 2009/10. Why, you may ask?
It just so happens that LaFrentz's and Wally's contracts are both up the same year -- at the end of the 2008/9 season. Pierce's expires the year prior. Depending on how the youngsters develop and what the Celtics decide to do, they actually have a lot of options heading into the 2007/8 and 2008/9 season, and a lot more than if they had kept Blount and his $8m deal. Should they decide to deal Pierce, they could aquire young players and expiring contracts, and use the saved money to pay the young guys. (Most of the young guys have team options through 2007/8 and qualifying offers in 2008/9; Perkins is the notable exception, with his options coming up one year prior.) Alternately, they could choose to sign their young players and keep Pierce, and simply let Wally and LaFrentz go at the end of the 2008/9 season. That would put them over the cap and probably into luxury terrirtory for one season before taking $26 million off the books in 2009/10. Or they could do none of the above and continue to overhaul and tweak the roster with trades, etc., as they go along.
In short, I'm coming around to the thinking that despite the ugly outrageousness of Wally's contract, it's not the enormous albatross that it appears at first blush. It might even fit well with their long term plan. Plus, don't forget that Kandi-man's $5m comes off the books at the end of this year, and Vin Baker stops counting against the cap at the end of next year (to the tune of $5m per). And while that money won't bring in major free agents or anything, it might get something decent, or again, they could save it for the kids.
In the end, I'd give the deal a tentative thumbs up both on-court and on-the-bottom-line. I guess I just have one question left -- how much will we miss Ricky's D?
--------------
*It's a little unfair to compare Ricky and Wally directly, since Wally (when uninjured) plays a lot more minutes and is asked to do totally different things in their offense (Wally is a shooter on a team where Garnett runs the offense from the post; Davis was a creator in both Cleveland and here, even when playing with Pierce.)
Ever the optimist
Like every other Celtics trade or draft pick of the last several years Bill Simmons immediately loves it. Somehow I can't read this piece without remembering his assurances that Tony Allen was going be the next Ron Artest, Gary Payton and Paul Pierce were training together in Vegas (yes, but training for what?) and set to take the Eastern conference by storm, and so on.
At the same time, it's hard to argue with his Dad on this one:
Well, we sure agree on that one.
At the same time, there are more than enough points in this article where you wonder if Bill's really paying attention. For example:
Ummmm, Bill, thirty seconds with Google will reveal that the Celtics salary commitments for next season as a result of this trade will run $53M+, not counting draft picks. The NBA salary cap for next season is estimated to be $49.2M. So not only will the Celtics be well over the cap, but they would need to get their salary down below $43.8M to be able to afford signing more than the MLE free agent that they could sign anyway. Your arithmetic is off by more than $10M, but who's counting.
At the same time, it's hard to argue with his Dad on this one:
My father was delighted about last night's Celtics trade because he likes any trade where his team gets the best player AND a No. 1 pick. He has also liked Wally Szezcerbiak going back to college. But here was Dad's favorite thing about the trade, hands down: "If I could have picked any four guys on the team to get rid of, I would have picked those four guys!"
The four guys: Ricky Davis, Marcus Banks, Mark Blount and Justin Reed.
Well, we sure agree on that one.
At the same time, there are more than enough points in this article where you wonder if Bill's really paying attention. For example:
With Blount's contract off the books, and Olowokandi's contract done after the season, the Celtics will be under the cap this summer. Now Danny can sign another white guy to go with Wally, Raef, Scalabrine and Dan Dickau for an official Whitewash. Bring back the tight shorts from the 80's, Danny! Let's take this thing all the way!
Ummmm, Bill, thirty seconds with Google will reveal that the Celtics salary commitments for next season as a result of this trade will run $53M+, not counting draft picks. The NBA salary cap for next season is estimated to be $49.2M. So not only will the Celtics be well over the cap, but they would need to get their salary down below $43.8M to be able to afford signing more than the MLE free agent that they could sign anyway. Your arithmetic is off by more than $10M, but who's counting.
Consistency is the hobgoblin of... what again?
I'm not sure what this means, if anything, but reaction to the Davis-Szczerbick trade has been impressively different depending on where you're sitting (or writing).
The Boston media has all been reasonably positive, taking the stance the Wally is a bettter compliment to Pierce than Davis and that dealing Blount and Banks are addition by subtraction. Witness Steve Bulpett of the Herald:
ESPN's writer have taken the position that the trade does little to help either team, but most believe the Timberwolves got the better end of the deal. Marc Stein is underwhelmed by what this does for Boston:
The press in Minnesotta, by contrast, has been panning the trade pretty hard. And for sure, if my team had Kevin Garnett I'd be pretty upset at the crap the Timberwolves have assembled around him. Tom Powers of the Twin Cities Pioneer Press vents his frustration:
Ouch.
Update: I would be remiss if I didn't point out that YaySports! has declared the Celtics 36% more handsome as of this morning.
The Boston media has all been reasonably positive, taking the stance the Wally is a bettter compliment to Pierce than Davis and that dealing Blount and Banks are addition by subtraction. Witness Steve Bulpett of the Herald:
After initially looking to make a trade to clear salary cap and roster space, the Celtics instead made a dramatic move last night that will alter their starting lineup and provide a better complement to their best player.
Davis had been leading the team in minutes and was fourth in the league at 41.6 per game. He also was the team’s No. 2 scorer at 19.7 behind Pierce’s 25.6, but the team felt the two were too similar in the way they played. Szczerbiak is a better spot-up shooter from the outside who can stretch defenses and allow Pierce more room to work inside. And with Pierce playing more at shooting guard, there also is the possibility he will draw smaller defenders.
ESPN's writer have taken the position that the trade does little to help either team, but most believe the Timberwolves got the better end of the deal. Marc Stein is underwhelmed by what this does for Boston:
Put a marksman of Wally's class in a mix with Pierce and Boston's three promising youngsters (Delonte West and power players Al Jefferson and Kendrick Perkins) and McHale's buddy Danny Ainge just might have the start of something.
Emphasis on start, but a little something nonetheless.
The press in Minnesotta, by contrast, has been panning the trade pretty hard. And for sure, if my team had Kevin Garnett I'd be pretty upset at the crap the Timberwolves have assembled around him. Tom Powers of the Twin Cities Pioneer Press vents his frustration:
This is the second straight season in which McHale has taken drastic measures to try to right the ship. Coach Flip Saunders was fired last winter in an effort to shake things up. That didn't work. Now McHale is bringing in an entire new platoon of players.
Clearly he is running out of chances to get the job done. The logical question is: Why is the team always on the verge of keeling over in midseason? Why aren't the proper changes made at the start? Surely McHale must have known at the onset that this was a scraggly bunch.
Well, it doesn't appear that the Wolves got much better — or worse. The early line is that we can categorize this one as change for the sake of change.
Mark Blount isn't a big presence in the middle, as his 4.5 career rebounding average will attest. Besides, Target Center always has been a graveyard for centers. The Wolves are cursed at that position. Ricky Davis for Wally Szczerbiak? For sure, all that's going to do is tick off a large segment of the fan base. Wally was extremely popular here. But he always was a scapegoat, too. Now they won't have him to kick around anymore.
And then all the other pieces of the trade have to do with youth and potential. After watching some of the draft choices that have passed through here, I no longer believe in youth and potential.
Ouch.
Update: I would be remiss if I didn't point out that YaySports! has declared the Celtics 36% more handsome as of this morning.
Amico likes the trade for both teams
Most of the early commentary on the Davis-Szczerbiak trade understandably focuses on how it will affect each team's on-the-court play for the rest of this season. Few give much (or any) attention to the issue that R.M. and I look to first: the implications for rebuilding and long-term financial flexibility.
Put Sam Amico-- long time Celtics fan and national basketball commentator-- in the camp that things this trade is good thing in the short run.
I can't help but disagree with Amico on his conclusion. Right now only matters if you are concerned with short-term ticket sales and revenue-- important issues to be sure. If you are also concerned with building a championship team, however, right now doesn't matter nearly as much as what this team will look like in 3-4 years. And unfortunately I think there's a good chance this trade just made that future worse.
Put Sam Amico-- long time Celtics fan and national basketball commentator-- in the camp that things this trade is good thing in the short run.
Szczerbiak is having a career year. The 6-foot-7 swingman is averaging 20.7 points and, as usual, is making about half of his field-goal attempts. The Celtics now have three guys who are extremely reliable when the idea is taking -- and often making -- the best of shots in Szczerbiak, Paul Pierce and surprising second-year guard Delonte West.
Szczerbiak is hitting 49 percent from the floor, which is actually a low number for him. Pierce is at 48 percent, and West is a John Stockton-like 51 percent.
Granted, Davis has grown up considerably during his time with the Celtics, and he should be applauded for it. But he is still a bit erratic on the court. Szczerbiak is nothing but steady. Give him an open shot, and he’ll make it. He also has an outstanding mid-range game, a rarity in today’s NBA for players not named Richard Hamilton.
So while Davis is no longer immature, landing Szczerbiak will help stabilize this young, previously inconsistent Celtics team. And don’t forget, Szczerbiak was outstanding in a grueling Western Conference finals loss to the Lakers two years ago -- proving that he knows something about emerging when it matters most.
For these Celtics, right now is when it matters most, especially if they have any hopes of making the playoffs.
I can't help but disagree with Amico on his conclusion. Right now only matters if you are concerned with short-term ticket sales and revenue-- important issues to be sure. If you are also concerned with building a championship team, however, right now doesn't matter nearly as much as what this team will look like in 3-4 years. And unfortunately I think there's a good chance this trade just made that future worse.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Celts trade Davis & Bount for Kandi & Szczerbiak
Looks like the C's have traded for Olowokandi and Wally Szczerbiak. New England Sports Tonight is reporting that Blount, Reed and Banks are going to the T-Wolves, and the C's are getting another player in return. I'm trying to check to see if the numbers work on RealGM, but having trouble getting through.
UPDATE:
Here's the press release from the Celtics website.
1. Doesn't Szczerbiak play the same position as Pierce? I guess P.P. is moving to the 2.
2. Did we really have to take on Wally's insane contact? This is just as bad as LaFrentz -- he averages $12 million for the next three years.
More from the press release:
UPDATE:
Here's the press release from the Celtics website.
The Boston Celtics announced today that they have acquired forward Wally Szczerbiak, center Michael Olowokandi, center Dwayne Jones, and a future first round draft choice from the Minnesota Timberwolves in exchange for Marcus Banks, Mark Blount, Ricky Davis, Justin Reed, and two conditional second round draft choices.First impressions:
1. Doesn't Szczerbiak play the same position as Pierce? I guess P.P. is moving to the 2.
2. Did we really have to take on Wally's insane contact? This is just as bad as LaFrentz -- he averages $12 million for the next three years.
More from the press release:
Szczerbiak, a one-time All-Star, is averaging a career-high 20.1 points, shooting 49.5 percent from the field and 40.6 percent from beyond the arc, to go with 4.8 boards in 38.9 minutes per game. The 6-7, 235-pound forward, originally drafted 6th overall in the 1999 NBA Draft by Minnesota, has career averages of 15.5 points, shooting 50.1 percent from the field and 40.5 percent from beyond the arc, to go with 4.4 rebounds in 33.6 minutes per game...I guess that's one way to think about it. Another way is that you took two medium to bad contracts and traded them for one awful one for a player who plays the exact same position as your star. Unless they're preparing to unload Pierce, I don't get it.
"We are ecstatic to acquire a player of Wally Szczerbiak's quality to complement Paul Pierce and our young talent base", said Celtics Executive Director of Basketball Operations, Danny Ainge. "In Wally we are receiving an All-Star player who is playoff tested and who has been a winner at all levels. We wish Ricky, Mark, Marcus, and Justin continued success in Minnesota."
Do the basketball gods have it in for Indiana?
The last 48 hours were supposed to be a turning point for the Pacers franchise. Artest largely wrecked the last two years for them, sabatoging what was arguably the best team in the Eastern Conference a month into last season.
The trade for Peja was supposed to turn the page all that; although even with him they were unlikely to be better than the 3-4th best team in the East and a long-shot to upset Detroit or Miami in the playoffs.
Now comes word that Jermaine O'Neal will miss the next two months, at least, with a groin injury.
The Pacers with Jermaine but without Artest have been a .500 team working to hold on to the 7th or 8th seed in the playoffs. Adding the defensively soft and declining Peja but losing O'Neal is a big blow. If O'Neal comes back on the 1st of March he will miss 31 games and rejoin the team with 11 games, and two and a half weeks, left to the season. This doesn't provide much time to regain his conditioning (hard to ride a stationary bike with a torn groin) and learn to play with his new pick-and-roll partner.
Chicago Bull fans have to be thinking that three game gap looks a lot smaller today than it did yesterday.
The trade for Peja was supposed to turn the page all that; although even with him they were unlikely to be better than the 3-4th best team in the East and a long-shot to upset Detroit or Miami in the playoffs.
Now comes word that Jermaine O'Neal will miss the next two months, at least, with a groin injury.
The Pacers with Jermaine but without Artest have been a .500 team working to hold on to the 7th or 8th seed in the playoffs. Adding the defensively soft and declining Peja but losing O'Neal is a big blow. If O'Neal comes back on the 1st of March he will miss 31 games and rejoin the team with 11 games, and two and a half weeks, left to the season. This doesn't provide much time to regain his conditioning (hard to ride a stationary bike with a torn groin) and learn to play with his new pick-and-roll partner.
Chicago Bull fans have to be thinking that three game gap looks a lot smaller today than it did yesterday.
Walk Away Theo
That's the title from Eric Wilbur's most recent post on le affair Coco Chanel. Word is that the Indians want Andy Marte, Kelly Shoppach and now Manny Delcarmen for Crispity Chocolaty -- three of the top 10 rated prospects in the Sox system. Shoppach doesn't seem like such a big deal -- we've been waiting years for him to develop into a major league caliber talent -- but Marte and Delcarmen are clearly guys that most people have tabbed for solid (Delcarmen) to great (Marte) MLB careers. Seems like a stiff price to pay for a guy who's never hit leadoff and may or may not be able to handle the pressures of playing in Boston. But then again, there are no guarantees with prospects, are there? I say screw the Indians. Take the deal off the table and see if they decide it's worth a flier on Mota's arm.
Speaking of taking a flier on Mota's arm, turns out the Red Sox never even did a physical of their own, for either Mota or Beckett. Um... isn't that professional sports 101? Apparently not, according to Chris Snow's story in the Globe today.
Unintentional comedy scale registers new high, promptly breaks
Vince Carter decides that that after Kobe's 81 points its time for someone to stand up for the integrity of the team:
Somewhere a lot of Raptors fans are silently nodding their heads in agreement
Update: Carter is shocked, SHOCKED that his self-centered and immature resentment about Kobe setting a new scoring record is being interpreted as self-centered and immature. His real message to kids? Apparently it was: 'you're not that good, so don't try.'
Carter, who matched his career high with 51 points in Miami last month, is all for the multiple high-scoring games that the likes of Bryant, Allen Iverson and LeBron James have enjoyed this season. But he hopes it doesn't send a bad message to younger players.
"The only bad thing about it," Carter said, "is that younger kids now, whose minds are easily [influenced], they are going to think, 'Oh! I am going to go out there and do it,' instead of [having] the team concept first. That is what is missing in the game: guys understanding how to play as a team.
Somewhere a lot of Raptors fans are silently nodding their heads in agreement
Update: Carter is shocked, SHOCKED that his self-centered and immature resentment about Kobe setting a new scoring record is being interpreted as self-centered and immature. His real message to kids? Apparently it was: 'you're not that good, so don't try.'
Schilling, Artest, and More
The Bostonian segment of this blog might be interested in reading
Bill Simmon's email exchange with Curt Schilling.
As far as the Artest trade goes, I think it's safe to say that both teams are making a gamble. But I like Sacramento's gamble more than Indiana's. The Kings were going to lose Peja no matter what, and prior to this trade they were going nowhere this season or next.
The Kings couldn't afford to re-sign Peja, and they don't have cap room to sign free agents. Since they're into the luxury tax as it is, I don't even think they will be willing to spend their mid-level exemption. So Artest is worth the gamble. If he pans out, they can trade him for something useful next season. If not, he'll be an expiring contract next year and they can unload him then.
As for the Pacers, I think that once Maggette got hurt they faced the realization that they weren't going to get anyone better who could help now than Peja. Peja has been injured and on the decline, but he's still very talented. Obviously the Pacers wanted someone who would help them win now, and they're right to view themselves as a contender.
But I think the Pacers took a bigger gamble than the Kings. They turned down young talent from other clubs, like Golden State, to bet on a player who will likely opt-out after this season. If they don't re-sign Peja, or if Peja continues to decline, they will wish they got a couple of young (cheap) guns from the Warriors instead.
Bill Simmon's email exchange with Curt Schilling.
As far as the Artest trade goes, I think it's safe to say that both teams are making a gamble. But I like Sacramento's gamble more than Indiana's. The Kings were going to lose Peja no matter what, and prior to this trade they were going nowhere this season or next.
The Kings couldn't afford to re-sign Peja, and they don't have cap room to sign free agents. Since they're into the luxury tax as it is, I don't even think they will be willing to spend their mid-level exemption. So Artest is worth the gamble. If he pans out, they can trade him for something useful next season. If not, he'll be an expiring contract next year and they can unload him then.
As for the Pacers, I think that once Maggette got hurt they faced the realization that they weren't going to get anyone better who could help now than Peja. Peja has been injured and on the decline, but he's still very talented. Obviously the Pacers wanted someone who would help them win now, and they're right to view themselves as a contender.
But I think the Pacers took a bigger gamble than the Kings. They turned down young talent from other clubs, like Golden State, to bet on a player who will likely opt-out after this season. If they don't re-sign Peja, or if Peja continues to decline, they will wish they got a couple of young (cheap) guns from the Warriors instead.
More cynicism from the peanut gallery
Basketball writer David Friedman, over at 20 second timeout, displays both a subtle appreciation for the urban aesthetics of the city of Boston as well his skepticism of the Artest-Peja trade:
I get a kick out of listening to the various TV analysts trying to decipher which team came out ahead, the Pacers or the Kings. Those who favor the Kings preface their comments with phrases like "Assuming Artest stays out of trouble..." Is this really a reasonable assumption to make? If Artest would have stayed out of trouble we never would have gotten to this point in the first place and the Pacers would still be viable championship contenders. Eveyone knows that he is an All-Star caliber player but no one knows if he is mentally/psychologically stable enough to play top level basketball for an extended period without incident. More to the point is the observation that the Maloofs own a casino and like to take risks; for risk junkies/thrill seekers, bringing Artest into the fold is like hitting the jackpot--and it's not like the Maloofs are breaking up a juggernaut here.
Those who believe that the Pacers came out ahead say that if Peja's body does not completely break down then he can really help Indiana because he is a proven shooter. Thank you, Captain Obvious. The question about Peja that no one is talking about is how will he perform in clutch moments in the playoffs (if the Pacers are fortunate enough to reach such moments this season). Some of Peja's three pointers down the stretch in playoff games have been more off target than Vanderjagt's kick against the Steelers.
How do I think this deal will turn out? Unless someone can read Artest's psychiatric report, look at the MRI scans of Peja's balky back and peer into Peja's psyche to see if he is going to welcome pressure shots the way Reggie Miller used to, there is no way to know right now who is going to come out ahead. Really, that isn't even the point; this deal had to be done because both teams were running out of options. The Pacers could not just go through the whole season short a player--particularly one with Artest's skill level--and the Kings had to get something for Peja before he became a free agent and left them empty-handed. For two teams with such rapidly dwindling options, this deal is probably about as good as it gets.
Should the adults hide, too?
In "Hide the children, Artest is coming to town" Sacramento basketball coach Brian McCormick has this to say about the Peja-Artest trade:
Sacramento faced the real opportunity of losing Peja at the end of the season, and I have frequently defended trades and potential trades on this board with the 'something is better than nothing' argument.
That said, the Kings of the last season and a half look like they are 2-3 years behind the Celtics in rebuilding. The declining group of veterans with which they had playoff success have been mostly shipped out. At the same time, however, they have almost no depth and little young talent. Now would be a decent time to gut the place and start over. In that sense the Artest trade, like signing SAR, seems an effort to hold off the inevitable.
This blog will now observe a moment of silence in memory of those wonderful Bibbly-Webber-Peja-Divac Princeton offense teams from 2001-03. They sure could choke in the playoffs when it mattered, but during all those meaningless mid-season games against half-hearted opponents they were a thing a beauty.
While I proclaimed the Webber trade the worst trade in history and questioned Petrie's draft guru status, this move will define Petrie's career.
Acquiring Artest signals a dramatic overhaul of the roster, and probably Adelman's demise, as losing Peja on top of Vlade and Webber basically ends the Princeton-offense era in Sacramento. Pete Carril will move on to New Jersey in the off-season and Sacramento will hire a defensive-minded coach to capitalize on the wing play of Bonzi Wells and Ron Artest.
The next move for Petrie will be interesting; does he keep Artest and overhaul the roster around Wells, Abdur-Rahim and Artest? Or, does he deal Artest for a player who is a better fit in the current Kings' system; someone like Wally Sczerbiak or Mike Miller?
While Artest should improve the Kings' D, and give the media something else to criticize, he alone is not the answer. The Kings offense needs re-shffling and Artest's presence does little to seal the interior or stop dribble penetration from opposing point guards.
Petrie's legend will either grow or disappear in the next year; last year, when Webber was traded, I was sure it would lead to another deal with either Williamson, Thomas or Skinner. All three remain, two parked deep on the bench. The Artest trade signals a momentous change in the Kings' operandi, and another deal of some sort, whether major or minor, would make sense. Does Petrie trust Artest with his legacy? Can Ron-Ron resuscitate the Kings? Can Artest will Abdur-Rahim, Bibby and Miller to defend better? Will the Kings move to a high-low offense featuring Miller high and Artest low? These are intresting time for the Sacramento franchise.
Sacramento faced the real opportunity of losing Peja at the end of the season, and I have frequently defended trades and potential trades on this board with the 'something is better than nothing' argument.
That said, the Kings of the last season and a half look like they are 2-3 years behind the Celtics in rebuilding. The declining group of veterans with which they had playoff success have been mostly shipped out. At the same time, however, they have almost no depth and little young talent. Now would be a decent time to gut the place and start over. In that sense the Artest trade, like signing SAR, seems an effort to hold off the inevitable.
This blog will now observe a moment of silence in memory of those wonderful Bibbly-Webber-Peja-Divac Princeton offense teams from 2001-03. They sure could choke in the playoffs when it mattered, but during all those meaningless mid-season games against half-hearted opponents they were a thing a beauty.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Peja-for-Ron is back on.
At least for now.
The most important sentence in the story: "ESPN's Stephen A. Smith reports that Ron Artest is boarding a plane for Boston and he will be in a Kings uniform Friday night against the Celtics."
The most important sentence in the story: "ESPN's Stephen A. Smith reports that Ron Artest is boarding a plane for Boston and he will be in a Kings uniform Friday night against the Celtics."
Artest going west?
Mark Montieth of the Indianapolis Star talks to Larry Bird who seems to think that the Artest soap opera will cut to commercial soon.
Update: Indeed, Artest for Peja now a done deal. ESPN has the goods.
Update 2: ESPN is now reporting that Artest has indicated he would not report to Sacramento, causing the Kings to pull out of the deal. This may or may not give David Stern reason to enforce the 'players failing to report' provision of the most recently amended CBA, since the Kings were the party to formally call of the deal.
Update 3: Latest word from ESPN is that Artest has agreed to the trade but that the Maloofs want to meet with Artest before giving their approval. If the Kings feel, after the last 36 hours, that they have no choice but to trade Peja what is the chance they will cut a deal with Artest and his agent: Ron plays hard in the short term and the team looks to trade him to a third team as soon as possible? Is now the time for the Celtics to be on the phone with Sacramento offering something like Davis, Blount and Banks for Artest and Skinner?
Bird believes they won't have to wait much longer. He said the Pacers are talking with "five, maybe six" teams, all in the Western Conference. He doesn't expect more than two teams to be included in the deal, and hopes not to have to packageI will take the revelation that the remaining teams are all in the Western Conference to indicate that Bird, like R.M., is underwhelmed by Ricky Davis.
Update: Indeed, Artest for Peja now a done deal. ESPN has the goods.
Update 2: ESPN is now reporting that Artest has indicated he would not report to Sacramento, causing the Kings to pull out of the deal. This may or may not give David Stern reason to enforce the 'players failing to report' provision of the most recently amended CBA, since the Kings were the party to formally call of the deal.
Update 3: Latest word from ESPN is that Artest has agreed to the trade but that the Maloofs want to meet with Artest before giving their approval. If the Kings feel, after the last 36 hours, that they have no choice but to trade Peja what is the chance they will cut a deal with Artest and his agent: Ron plays hard in the short term and the team looks to trade him to a third team as soon as possible? Is now the time for the Celtics to be on the phone with Sacramento offering something like Davis, Blount and Banks for Artest and Skinner?
Vermont Frost Heaves
If you haven't already done so, the basketball junkies on this blog might enjoy signing up for the Vermont Frost Heaves "Bump in the Road" club. Alexander Wolff of Sports Illustrated is starting an ABA team, and writes about his experiences on a semi-regular basis. I've been signed up for a few weeks and haven't been deluged with spam thus far -- only one post, in blog format, mostly having to do with Wolff's experiences getting their retail merchandising operation off the ground.
For those of you who are content to merely check in on this story from afar, SI is posting the occasional Wolff update here.
From bad to worse
Isiah Thomas has been the butt of many jokes for his up-and-down career as a coach and manager. His critics will have even more material now that Isiah is the subject of a sexual harassment lawsuit by a former Knicks front-office employee. While this looks like it will be sad and ugly in all sorts of predictable ways, certainly the most eye-opening thing to be alleged so far is that
Hmmm, maybe Thomas learned a thing or two from signing Vin Baker after all
Thomas told Browne Sanders he was pushing for more home games at noon on Sundays. His plan, according to Browne Sanders, was to have opposing players go to certain clubs, including strip clubs, that Thomas had connections with on Saturday nights and get them drunk so they would be sluggish for the game the next day
Hmmm, maybe Thomas learned a thing or two from signing Vin Baker after all
Kobe's 81 revisited
Henry Abbott makes the following observations after watching the tape of Kobe's historic shooting night
early in the game, say when he's scoring his first thirty points, he's getting his body between his defender and the basket. That's good basketball. He's beating his man, and his shots on the move are shots any basketball coach in America would want his player to shoot.
Later in the game, however, he clearly tires. The quality of the shot opportunities he can create for himself against a set defense is low. But he takes them anyway.
To me this performance is more about the time he has spent alone in gyms throughout his life. It's not the culmination of everything everyone has ever taught him about basketball. It's a tribute to the fact that with a lifetime of hard work and repetition, on some nights, you'll get such a hot hand that even the shots you should never take will fall.
Theo on WEEI
Listened to Theo Epstein and Larry Lucchino talking together on WEEI this morning. They pretty much reiterated everything from the press release issued yesterday. But there were also a couple of interesting side notes.
First, both Lucchino and Epstein acknowledge that there was "friction" in their relationship stemming from the contract negotiations. But Epstein went further and indicated, more than once, that the key issue for him had been philosophical differences about the direction of the ball club. Specifically, while admitting that there would always be debate and discussion about moves the team might make, he said there had never been an overriding philosophy for the club over its core values -- essentially, the Red Sox mission statement. He discussed key components of this -- disagreements over whether the club should make moves specifically with the short term or long term in mind; what type of players were they going to focus on; and and ongoing issues relating to baseball decision making process. And second, Theo also specifically mentioned how the Red Sox were going to approach issues relating to the club, essentially indicating that they should keep matters in-house unless they had something official to announce. Lucchino later echoed this point. And finally, they both agreed that Theo's authority and decision making power was pretty much unchanged -- he still reports to Lucchino and the rest of the ownership/management group.
So in the end, it seems to me that there were two key components to this. Theo felt like there was no overriding philosophy over making baseball decisions. Reading between the lines, it would appear that there were in fact things that Theo wanted to do that didn't get done (perhaps like the Rockies deal?), and he believed a key component of this was because there was no overall plan to fall back on when there were disagreements between key players. In fact, this very point was hinted at by Lucchino in part of the interview where he described Epstein as "bold, very bold" as a general manager, essentially indicating that Epstein was more of a risk taker than some of the people around him. Thus, even if Theo doesn't have more power, he's ensured that there's some sort of framework that allows him to control the decision making process over at Yawkey Way a little better.
And second, it's clear to me that Epstein was pissed about the way the contract negotiations and Lucchino/Steinberg's snarky stuff made it into the press. (Thank you, Dan Shaughnessy.) As Michael Silverman pointed out yesterday, tick tick tick tick....
First, both Lucchino and Epstein acknowledge that there was "friction" in their relationship stemming from the contract negotiations. But Epstein went further and indicated, more than once, that the key issue for him had been philosophical differences about the direction of the ball club. Specifically, while admitting that there would always be debate and discussion about moves the team might make, he said there had never been an overriding philosophy for the club over its core values -- essentially, the Red Sox mission statement. He discussed key components of this -- disagreements over whether the club should make moves specifically with the short term or long term in mind; what type of players were they going to focus on; and and ongoing issues relating to baseball decision making process. And second, Theo also specifically mentioned how the Red Sox were going to approach issues relating to the club, essentially indicating that they should keep matters in-house unless they had something official to announce. Lucchino later echoed this point. And finally, they both agreed that Theo's authority and decision making power was pretty much unchanged -- he still reports to Lucchino and the rest of the ownership/management group.
So in the end, it seems to me that there were two key components to this. Theo felt like there was no overriding philosophy over making baseball decisions. Reading between the lines, it would appear that there were in fact things that Theo wanted to do that didn't get done (perhaps like the Rockies deal?), and he believed a key component of this was because there was no overall plan to fall back on when there were disagreements between key players. In fact, this very point was hinted at by Lucchino in part of the interview where he described Epstein as "bold, very bold" as a general manager, essentially indicating that Epstein was more of a risk taker than some of the people around him. Thus, even if Theo doesn't have more power, he's ensured that there's some sort of framework that allows him to control the decision making process over at Yawkey Way a little better.
And second, it's clear to me that Epstein was pissed about the way the contract negotiations and Lucchino/Steinberg's snarky stuff made it into the press. (Thank you, Dan Shaughnessy.) As Michael Silverman pointed out yesterday, tick tick tick tick....
Maybe this is the problem
It's taken me a week to get around to reading the Jan. 19th issue of Sports Illustrated. There's a great article on rebounding which focuses on Dwight Howard, but has some very interesting tidbits on one Mr. Mark Blount. Unfortunately, you have to be a magazine subscriber to get to the content. But here are the nut graphs:
So, let me see if I have this straight: Moochie Norris is a better rebounder than Mark Blount. Or, to put it more succinctly, Blount sucks at rebounding. Maybe that's why we can't trade him.As easily as rebounding comes to Howard, there are men out there -- large, athletic men -- for whom it is an unnatural act. The best-known of these may be the Knicks' Eddy Curry, who is 6'11" and 285 pounds but has never averaged more than 6.7 rebounds. Mark Blount of the Boston Celtics presents an even bigger puzzle. At 7 feet and 250 pounds, with thick shoulders, he should devour rebounds. Instead he often seems to jump in slightly the wrong direction. At week's end Blount was averaging 4.5 rebounds in 29.3 minutes. To understand how remarkable that is, consider that there were 225 players at week's end, who had a better rebounding rate per 48 minutes than Blount, including 6'1" Moochie Norris of the Houston Rockets and 6-foot Chris Paul of the New Orleans Hornets. When Blount recently pleaded for more shots, Celtics coach Doc Rivers told the Boston Herald, "The next time someone asks for touches, tell him to go get the freaking rebound."
Maybe, however, it isn't Blount's fault. Jim O'Brien revealed in an online exchange that when he was Boston's coach from 2001 until January '04, the team conducted a study on Blount, bringing in C.M. Newton, a former Kentucky athletic director and Celtics consultant. Newton's conclusion, according to O'Brien: Blount doesn't have "the instinct" to rebound. That underscored what many believe to be true: Because timing and quick-jumping and a space-consuming rump are difficult assets to acquire, you're either a rebounder or you're not, no matter how many tricks of the trade you learn. "It's consistent," says Dallas Mavericks assistant Del Harris. "Guys will become better shooters, that's been proven. But you hardly ever take a guy who's been a nonrebounder and [make him into] a legit rebounder in the league."
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
The more things change...
Michael Silverman of the Boston Herald is reporting breaking news: Theo Epstein is coming back. But that's not the breaking news. Here's the lead:
Apparently he's even coming back with the exact same title -- General Manager. Cherrington and Hoyer will be reassigned in some capacity. So exactly what was this all about? Again, the Herald's take.
Um... okay. That's what this was all about? Theo wanted someone to play nice? I think Silverman sums it up best in the next paragraph.
Tick tick tick tick....
The Red Sox are poised to announce Theo Epstein’s return as the general manager of the Red Sox, with roughly the same powers, authority and autonomy he had when he left on Oct. 31... In other words, nothing officially has changed.
Apparently he's even coming back with the exact same title -- General Manager. Cherrington and Hoyer will be reassigned in some capacity. So exactly what was this all about? Again, the Herald's take.
Since the team announced Epstein’s return last Thursday evening, it has refused to elaborate on his title and role but Henry has stated that Lucchino’s powers will not be diminished. One reason for Henry’s statement, it is believed, is because so many who have been following this story have assumed that Epstein would not return unless or until he could report directly to Henry or else hold more power in baseball operations decisions. Epstein has been said to chafe under Lucchino’s occasionally strong-armed management style.
That assumption has apparently been erroneous, however, and there is, according to sources both on and off the ballclub, a less complicated rationale for Epstein’s return. He has now become convinced that the work environment has improved to the point where there is more listening, more cooperation and more of an ability to compromise when there are differences.
Um... okay. That's what this was all about? Theo wanted someone to play nice? I think Silverman sums it up best in the next paragraph.
Given that nothing substantive has been changed with Epstein’s return, there is always the possibility that the resumed setup could be a time bomb of sorts that will detonate somewhere down the road, but that angle will not be acknowledged by the team today or anytime soon.
Tick tick tick tick....
Moneyball.
Looking for something else, I stumbled across this 2003 discussion of Moneyball 2003 between Rob Neyer and James Surowiecki. Worth another look if you have a second.
Halfway there
Last night's win against Charlotte was the 41st game of the season. At the midpoint the C's stand at 17-24, 6 games back and 3rd in the Atlantic Division, 11th in the Eastern Conference and 23rd in the league. If the season ended today and the draft lottery played out exactly according to standings the Celtics would pick 8th.
Let the NCAA scouting begin. Reports on Rajon Rondo, Ronnie Brewer, Daniel Gibson and any others are officially welcome in these pages.
Unrelatedly, for top-quality tax advice, go here.
Let the NCAA scouting begin. Reports on Rajon Rondo, Ronnie Brewer, Daniel Gibson and any others are officially welcome in these pages.
Unrelatedly, for top-quality tax advice, go here.
The Ripple Effects of the Artest Deal
Yes, Ricky Davis was never in the cards. The Pacers are looking to get a legit All-Star in return. I'm not surprised by the Peja rumors--if he agrees to sign an extension, that's a smart move for the Pacers. Peja is the closest thing they'll get to fair value for Artest. It's not a horrible deal for the Kings either, because as it stands they're going to lose Peja for nothing in the off-season.
If Peja-for-Artest fails to materialize, I expect the Pacers to ultimately deal with the Warriors. Pietrus + Biedrens should be enough. There aren't any other reasonable suitors out there. The Clippers don't have anything to trade now that Maggette is out of the picture.
Once the Artest deal is finally completed, look for there to be more deals--a lot of teams with tradeable assets have been waiting to see what happens with Artest before making a move. And if the deal ends up being Artest-for-Peja, expect the Bulls to try to make a move with their expiring contracts. They were hoping to sign Peja, and if he agrees to an extension with Indiana next summer's free agent class looks even more abysmal.
If Peja-for-Artest fails to materialize, I expect the Pacers to ultimately deal with the Warriors. Pietrus + Biedrens should be enough. There aren't any other reasonable suitors out there. The Clippers don't have anything to trade now that Maggette is out of the picture.
Once the Artest deal is finally completed, look for there to be more deals--a lot of teams with tradeable assets have been waiting to see what happens with Artest before making a move. And if the deal ends up being Artest-for-Peja, expect the Bulls to try to make a move with their expiring contracts. They were hoping to sign Peja, and if he agrees to an extension with Indiana next summer's free agent class looks even more abysmal.
Not exactly what we had in mind...
The Boston Herald reports the C's might deal for Seattle's Ronald "Flip" Murray and his expiring contract. But the RealGM Tradechecker won't allow Murray to be traded due to his status as a one-year-contract-Larry-Bird exemption status (whatever that means). But regardless, even if the trade is possible, it's clear the Blount/Murray salaries don't exactly match up.
By the way, the Post's Peter Vecsey reported this morning that Sacramento is the likely landing place for Artest, with Peja being the key return man. (According to Vescey, the trade is on the table, and all Sacramento has to do is say yes, but unfortunately, most of the article is behind a registration page.) Seems to me like a pretty good trade for both teams. Peja combines with O'Neal for a good inside/outside threat for the Pacers, and Artest gives the Sacramento frontline some muscle that's been lacking since Webber was shipped out of town.
By the way, the Post's Peter Vecsey reported this morning that Sacramento is the likely landing place for Artest, with Peja being the key return man. (According to Vescey, the trade is on the table, and all Sacramento has to do is say yes, but unfortunately, most of the article is behind a registration page.) Seems to me like a pretty good trade for both teams. Peja combines with O'Neal for a good inside/outside threat for the Pacers, and Artest gives the Sacramento frontline some muscle that's been lacking since Webber was shipped out of town.
When radio color analysts talk smack
Best response to Kobe's 81 points-- with a historical allusion thrown in for free-- goes to Cedric Maxwell
Link.
''There's no way he's getting 81 on me, not without going to Mass. General first," Maxwell said. ''Everyone on our team [the 1980s Celtics] would have felt the same way."Grrrrr, go Cornbread! Grrrrrrrr
Maxwell authored the memorable line ''no way the [expletive] is getting 50 on me" when someone asked him how he'd contain the ultra-hot Bernard King in the 1984 playoffs. King didn't get 50 -- until the series moved to New York for Games 3 and 4.
Link.
Monday, January 23, 2006
Kendrick and Al.
Neither of them shot very well (Perkins: 2-7; Jefferson: 3-10), but Perkins played 33 minutes and blocked 5 shots, and Jefferson got himself 11 rebounds in only 24 minutes (but 5 fouls, or he might have played more). Nice.
Oh, and the Celtics won. Here's the boxscore.
Oh, and the Celtics won. Here's the boxscore.
In tribute to Jerry Krause
In the pre-history of this blog, R.M. gave a nice email summary of the post-Jordan Krause years in Chicago:
It's nice to see some kind thoughts going Krause's way. I always admired his skill as a GM, and thought he got a bum rap.
He took a huge gamble by blowing up the nucleus and trying to clear cap room, and it almost worked. At the time Krause blew up the Bulls' nucleus, the CBA was different than it was today. There were no max contracts--teams could outbid each other if they had cap space, which is why Shaq and Garnett still make far above the league max.
Krause blew up the team because he knew that in a year, tons of awesome players would be free agents--Tim Duncan, Kobe, Grant Hill, Ray Allen, McGrady, Marbury, etc. At the time, if his team had the most cap room (which it would) he could outbid everyone for those players.
Then, unexpectedly, the new CBA not only introduced the concept of the max contract, but also gave an advantage to the player's current team in re-signing him. Suddenly the Bulls couldn't ever pay Duncan as much as the Spurs could, or Kobe as much as the Lakers could. After the CBA was signed, most of those guys re-upped with their current teams. Kobe, Allen, Marbury, etc.
Even after that, there were a few top free agents available during that fateful summer when the Bulls had max cap room. Tim Duncan, Grant Hill, McGrady, Eddie Jones (good at the time), Glen Rice. But once Tim Duncan stayed with the Spurs, the Magic got both Hill and McGrady. If Duncan bolted, the Bulls would have gotten McGrady (who loved Chicago and Krause, who almost traded Pippen for him a couple of years earlier). As it turns out, the Bulls got squat.
Krause's Plan B wasn't bad, because he had a good eye for talent. He drafted Elton Brand and Ron Artest, and signed Brad Miller for cheap. He had two lottery picks in the 2000 Draft, which turned out to be arguably the worst draft in NBA history. Only a few players in that draft are even starting, none are stars (except for Redd, selected in the second round). He got Jamal Crawford, who turned out to be one of the better players from that draft (sad, I know) but that wasn't enough to take that team anywhere.
But the team and fans were impatient, and Krause didn't stick with that group. He's most remembered for Plan C, which was a total screwup. He traded Brand for Chandler (?!?) and then traded Artest, Miller, and others for Jalen Rose. Those two trades pretty much defined him and prematurely ended his NBA career.
I think it's sad because he really was a good talent evaluator. He drafted Pippen, Horace Grant, and Kukoc (in the second round). Seeing where Pip's career went, Krause was smart to bail on him when he did. His free-agent plan was a good one, it wasn't his fault that the CBA changed. And he drafted well. It's unfair to judge the guy only by his last two trades.
Regarding the current state of the Bulls, I'm optimistic about the Bulls in the next couple years, even though we overachieved last year and will be lucky to get the #8 seed this year. I'm not high on Gordon, and Hinrich has been inconsistent this year. I do think Paxson did an awesome job trading Curry for the Knick's unprotected pick + a starting PF. Their pick will likely be a high lottery pick, and Curry wasn't worth the $10 million+ a year the Knicks paid him.
It's nice to see some kind thoughts going Krause's way. I always admired his skill as a GM, and thought he got a bum rap.
He took a huge gamble by blowing up the nucleus and trying to clear cap room, and it almost worked. At the time Krause blew up the Bulls' nucleus, the CBA was different than it was today. There were no max contracts--teams could outbid each other if they had cap space, which is why Shaq and Garnett still make far above the league max.
Krause blew up the team because he knew that in a year, tons of awesome players would be free agents--Tim Duncan, Kobe, Grant Hill, Ray Allen, McGrady, Marbury, etc. At the time, if his team had the most cap room (which it would) he could outbid everyone for those players.
Then, unexpectedly, the new CBA not only introduced the concept of the max contract, but also gave an advantage to the player's current team in re-signing him. Suddenly the Bulls couldn't ever pay Duncan as much as the Spurs could, or Kobe as much as the Lakers could. After the CBA was signed, most of those guys re-upped with their current teams. Kobe, Allen, Marbury, etc.
Even after that, there were a few top free agents available during that fateful summer when the Bulls had max cap room. Tim Duncan, Grant Hill, McGrady, Eddie Jones (good at the time), Glen Rice. But once Tim Duncan stayed with the Spurs, the Magic got both Hill and McGrady. If Duncan bolted, the Bulls would have gotten McGrady (who loved Chicago and Krause, who almost traded Pippen for him a couple of years earlier). As it turns out, the Bulls got squat.
Krause's Plan B wasn't bad, because he had a good eye for talent. He drafted Elton Brand and Ron Artest, and signed Brad Miller for cheap. He had two lottery picks in the 2000 Draft, which turned out to be arguably the worst draft in NBA history. Only a few players in that draft are even starting, none are stars (except for Redd, selected in the second round). He got Jamal Crawford, who turned out to be one of the better players from that draft (sad, I know) but that wasn't enough to take that team anywhere.
But the team and fans were impatient, and Krause didn't stick with that group. He's most remembered for Plan C, which was a total screwup. He traded Brand for Chandler (?!?) and then traded Artest, Miller, and others for Jalen Rose. Those two trades pretty much defined him and prematurely ended his NBA career.
I think it's sad because he really was a good talent evaluator. He drafted Pippen, Horace Grant, and Kukoc (in the second round). Seeing where Pip's career went, Krause was smart to bail on him when he did. His free-agent plan was a good one, it wasn't his fault that the CBA changed. And he drafted well. It's unfair to judge the guy only by his last two trades.
Regarding the current state of the Bulls, I'm optimistic about the Bulls in the next couple years, even though we overachieved last year and will be lucky to get the #8 seed this year. I'm not high on Gordon, and Hinrich has been inconsistent this year. I do think Paxson did an awesome job trading Curry for the Knick's unprotected pick + a starting PF. Their pick will likely be a high lottery pick, and Curry wasn't worth the $10 million+ a year the Knicks paid him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
