Re: Rogers not going to Nets (Yes he is)

[bird <birdwl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: Kim Malo <kimmalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Nope, not revisionist for me. I've commented before on finding him slow 
> to respond. Ask the poor guy sitting next to me in the Fleece how many 
> times I used to shout MOVE dammit Rodney, MOVE as the freaking ball went 
> right on past before he even twitched : )
Sorry, I meant "revisionist" in the sense of revising actual history 
rather than you revising your position, which has certainly been 
consistent.  I guess I always thought of Rodney as quicker than you do -- 
I don't remember him being slow to the ball, though that doesn't mean he 
wasn't.


> Again, I'm not saying I don't like Rodney, I just think people are going 
> WAY overboard about what he represents. Good journeyman is better than 
> most of what we've had around here for too long and is far better praise 
> than I would bestow on Blount or Pot. But that's still all he is IMO.
Well, we're clearly closer in opinion than I thought at first glance, 
because I agree, Rogers was/is a "good journeyman" and that's about all.  
But let us not neglect the importance a "good journeyman" can be to a team.
  With no Kevin McHales to blaze trails. the good sixth men in the league 
are basically "good journeyman".  The loss of a "good journeyman" *could* 
be a "huge blow" though it's too early to tell, perhaps especially if the 
loss is to a division rival.


> Honestly, I know he's only about 30-31, but what he looked like to me was 
> someone who used to be very quick who was starting to show his age a bit.
>  Which means it's likely to get worse, not better, because it's not like 
> he was out of shape.
Yes, no doubt of this at all.  If I'm not mistaken, Rogers used to play 
solely the small forward spot -- he's lost too much quickness to do that 
full-time in this league.


> Sure, so long as that's all that was needed - a first step. Make him 
> dribble from beyond the paint and that's where trouble showed. And look, 
> I'll freely admit that he was probably at least midlevel for a big man. 
> Lord knows he was MILES above Pot, starting with being able to catch a 
> pass (did Pot go to the Dick Stewart big man's camp instead of Pete 
> Newell's? <g>)
This is just another reminder of the deluge of mediocre big men paraded 
through town.  Now, I liked V, but the guy couldn't catch many passes down 
low -- he missed many an opportunity to score and pad Kenny's assist total.
  As for Rogers' drives, I'm thinking specifically of a drive he did from 
the right wing during the playoffs (Philly series, I think) where he just 
juked a guy with a first step, and made a really sweet drive to the hoop.  
It *looked* slow, but the players on the court certainly didn't react very 
quickly, so how "slow" was "slow", d'you know what I mean?


> Undoubtably that was the plan. Doesn't mean I have to like it or approve 
> of it<g>. I think he could have done more for them being inside a bit 
> more, both in terms of shots and availability for rebounds (that he 
> wouldn't have to move to get). There were too many times the lane would 
> be wide open and he (along with most of the rest of the team) would still 
> settle for the outside shot. I'd have rather the outside shot was his 
> secondary option and it looked like it was his primary one.
I understand, but he's (presumably) doing as the coaching staff wants; I 
find it difficult to fault the guy for that.  Welcome to the Wonderful 
World of Obie.  Once you just allow the meds to take over, it can be a 
pleasant ride.  Rogers just seemed to fit in very well in Obieball -- with 
the acquisition of a guy like Baker, I'm hoping Obie will adjust, because 
Baker, by contrast, doesn't seem to fit as well as Rogers.  Then again, 
Obie could just plug Baker in to Battie's spot and move along.


> And I certainly agree that he was far more of an asset than liability. 
> Thought I made that clear, especially in saying that I'd rather we kept 
> him than Walter. I just think people are going WAY overboard about what 
> he is, as I said above. Disappointment and creator of new problems that 
> he's gone? Absolutely. Huge blow? NIMO.
True to form, I'll reserve judgement until I see some action.  While there 
are always extremes of view, I don't think a whole bunch of people (more 
than normal) are going way overboard.  There's always the possibility that 
it *will* turn out to be a huge blow.   What I'll say is that I can't go 
through a whole season or something of bellyaching about it.  It's done, 
and there's nothing to be done for it, except, as always, try to build a 
better team that is constructed now.  But...


> I agree that I don't like the reason we lost him BTW. Losing him because 
> they didn't feel he was worth what he was asking would have been one 
> thing. Losing him for purely monetary reasons (and not even big money, in 
> NBA terms) when the coach and GM wanted to keep him is another thing 
> entirely.
...the apparent reasoning behind "not being able to afford" Rogers and 
letting him go to a division rival, is painful.  Skillful management, I 
think, would have somehow made sure that Rogers, if he "had" to be moved, 
would have gone to a Western team.  He may only be a "good journeyman", 
but he only wanted $2-3 million a year for 2-3 years, apparently.  Walter 
McCarty made that by barely getting into games and concentrating on his 
music career.  (I know, different situation.)  A "good journeyman" has 
*got* to be worth that, right?

Again, one of the bottom lines for me is, If you want to play in the NBA, 
you must pay, and if you cannot "afford" to p(l)ay, then let someone who 
can take over.


> Sorry but not the answer. They've had new CBAs, all of them with certain 
> agendas and all of them making someone unhappy. While it's not the 
> quality of the negotiators as much at issue as their interests. As the 
> saying goes, you can't legislate morality, and that's in a sense what 
> they' were both trying to do - legislate fiscal morality as they saw it.
*Sigh*, you're probably right, but what else besides a CBA will govern how 
these two camps of ... people will interact in the future?  Oh, OK, lot's 
of subtle things, but you know what I mean: in te NBA, the CBA is how 
things get done.  Certainly any human document based on human negotiation 
is going to be flawed, and I can accept that, I'm just sick of these 
particular flaws in this current CBA.   I don't care about making sides 
happy, I care about making *me* happy :).  My agenda is, I'd like a 
situation in place to force Paul Gaston to open up the checkbook, because 
I don't think he's selling.  Gotta get rid of the tax to do that, but then 
you need something to cap player salaries.  Whatever, it's all conjecture 
at this point.

I'll disagree about the negotiators, though: if one's tunnelvision in 
regards to interests hinders one's critical abilities, one is a bad 
negotiator.  Who, in their right minds, lets a phrase like "sole 
discretion" get into a contract?  And then challenges it later?  Those 
kinds of phrases ought to be Big Red Flags to any lawyer perusing that 
document.  It's like signing something that gives "complete and total 
control" to someone and then saying "Gee, I'd like some control too".  
Simply ridiculous.

Agreed about "fiscal morality": that's about as good a way to describe it 
as I've seen.

Bottom line?  Perhaps that NJ is a more formidable team than before, and 
the Celtics need to acquire a bit more talent, not just guys no one else 
wanted and thus come cheaply.  I'd like to see at least either a good 
veteran PG if Strick's not retained, or, if that's the case, perhaps even 
a trade for a plug to a hole.  We'll see.

Bird