Re: Vin Baker etc.

["Troy Hash" <troyhash@xxxxxxx>]

OK, assuming what you say is true, that Gaston "can't" be that dumb.  "I too
find it mind boggling from every aspect both business and basetball wise
that he would not at least make a good offer to Rodney".   Why have the Cs
taken the approach they have??   A million $ offer, IMO, is more insulting
than no offer at all?  Why do it and run the risk of pissing him and his
agent off??  I would LOVE to believe what you say is true, but I stick to
what a have said before, Gaston would much rather make 1 $ profit and lose
50 games than to pay this tax.  No matter what the cost.   Please keep
trying to convince me I am wrong,  I/we are desperate to believe that things
will work out.  But to me it just doesn't add up with the approach they are
taking.

Troy

----- Original Message -----
From: <hironaka@nomade.fr>
To: <celtics@igtc.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 2:22 PM
Subject: Vin Baker etc.


> Vin Baker is only 31 this year, but he has four full
> seasons left at approx. 50 million guaranteed.
>
> I personally don't believe one iota of the published
> report that Gaston refuses to take one season's hit worth
> of luxury tax to offer Rodney Rogers more than one
> million. That's saying he's not worth two million to the
> Boston franchise in salary and total taxes. Gaston's
> signed bigger checks than that to ink Randy Brown or
> Calbert Cheaney.
>
> Yet we're supposed to believe he'll allow Chris Wallace
> to add a 50 million contract (Vin Baker)from a team so
> desperate to trade him that they'll even accept an aging
> high strung point guard in return (to benchwarm for Gary
> Payton)?
>
> Again, I don't think I'm being stubborn in categorically
> refusing to believe Gaston would actually do this, or
> that Chris Wallace would so totally wimp out of taking a
> stand when his greatest trade get sabotaged over chump
> change.
>
> It doesn't add up, given the facts:
>
> 1) The Celtics raised ticket prices in the offseason. Huh?
> 2) The Celtics announce a profit and their stock also
> performs well in a bear market.
> 3) The new cap and luxury tax benchmarks come in lower
> than expected, meaning the Celtics and every other team
> are over it anyway, regardless. It amounts to a non-
> issue. All teams are in the same boat.
> 4) The Celtics become conference finalist.
> 5) As much as we like to portray him that way, Gaston
> simply isn't THAT cheap. He paid for Healthpoint, he paid
> for Pitinochio. I could vaguely understand if he opposed
> going over the cap to sign unproven talents on a yearly
> 35 win team. But I ALWAYS assumed he would pay to support
> a winner, just like his dad did. I think we all assumed
> this.
>
> It doesn't add up.
>
> As to the merits of re-signing Rodney Rogers during
> this "Filene's Basement" offseason opportunity, my views
> are subjective but they are as follows:
>
> 1) Give Rodney twenty minutes per game and he'll get you
> double figures, as shown in 8 years of stats. That's what
> made him a 6th Man of the Year, and a potential repeat
> threat next year now that he's on a winning team. If you
> converted any of half of last year's NBA starters into
> bench players, the vast majority would fail to perform
> that simple task (give you ten points in twenty minutes).
>
> 2) Not only is this a specialized skill, Rodney
> accomplishes it within the flow of the offense and
> without forcing shots (what a positive contrast to the
> rest of the Celtics), as born out by his high 2-point AND
> 3-point FG% year after year. His career stats are as
> consistent as those of Robert Parish, the most
> statistically consistent player I've ever seen.
>
> 2) Deep playoff teams need a dependably consistent double
> figure scorer on the bench. Its fine to have a guy who
> does it every other game, or has "the raw talent" to
> score 20 at any given time. But is that the same thing?
> Like I said, it is a specialized skill.
>
> 3) Not only can Rodney play small forward and center, he
> can actually guard small forwards and centers.
> Defensively, no team was able to exploit the purported
> size mismatches (he "plays big" as they say). Rogers did
> just as well guarding "Scoreless" Williamson as Dikimbe.
> He was almost the Cedric Maxwell of our playoff run.
>
> Guys, Rodney WILL sign in Boston. Boston fans do care
> about the Celtics and they are NOT going to stand for
> Thanks Dad and Pond Scum doing this on a conference
> finalist with the 7th lowest payroll in the league last
> year.
>
> Nor will you likely see Rodney's three-million-per-year
> contract traded to pick up long term albatross contracts
> like those of Croshere and Vin Baker. It makes no
> financial sense, it is risky. It is just plain stupid and
> managerially incompentent. Not very pennywise.
>
> It is not going to happen. I honestly believe this.
>
> At the level of money we are talking about, it is a
> steal.
>
> Rest easy. I've fallen for dumb rumors in the past, but
> this one takes the cake.
>
> Joe H.
>
> ***
> -------------------
> L'e-mail gratuit pas comme les autres.
> NOMADE.FR, pourquoi chercher ailleurs ?