Re: Re: Vin Baker

[Kim <kimmalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hey Mark

Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I wasn't joining Cecil in questioning  going through this again - I completely agree with you that the Vinnie situation is even more relevant to talk about than usual in the light of recent events.

And actually didn't mean to be targeting you in any way in agreeing with Joe. I just agree with him  - a) that Celtics fans can always find something to complain about and b) the corollary implication that sometimes there's more in their determination to find something than there is actual basis for complaint. 
And FWIW, an example of that is Kenny's contract where even if we kept it and let it expire we still wouldn't have had that actual amount to spend on someone else, because we're too near the cap. Not saying the value of that expiring contract asset couldn't have been used better, just saying that some of the complaints about what was done aren't based in reality either. 
Vinnie's definitely cause for complaint though.

As I expect Cecil knows too, and just figures that further complaints aren't going to advance us anywhere we haven't already been too many times before (which is why he said it would be different if you were just venting).

Kim

-------Original Message-------
From: "Berry, Mark  S" <berrym@BATTELLE.ORG>
Have to disagree a little here. It's one thing to criticize the team for letting Rodney Rogers and Eric Strickland go for financial reasons. You bitch about the owner and move on. If Wallace's hands had been tied, then
what do you do? But I'd wager, with the new owners now in place, we'd be
talking about what options we have with Kenny's expiring contract. Shareef
Abdur Rahim? Theo Ratliff? Brian Grant? Eddie Jones? I think the level of
criticism would only rise if Wallace looked at those options and then
decided to turn Kenny's contract into Vin Baker... oops, he already did.

Yes, the Vin Baker trade has been discussed quite a bit. But last night
was
a whole new chapter, and there are sure to be more. Kestas already
mentioned
the "chemistry" comments Tommy and Mike kept going on and on about. What
do
you think they were talking about? I'd like to say we hit rock bottom with
the Baker Era last night, but I'm pretty sure we're in for worse. And if
you
don't think that's relevant to talk about, then I guess I just don't
understand.

Mark