After being aced by Monica Seles, Dave Neuman said:
 DN> Philadelphia is a moot issue, I'm tired of hearing you bring them up.
They are just as moot as your ramblings about Boston. The Celtics have had 
three problems in the past couple of years - injuries, M.L. Carr, the GM and 
M.L. Carr, the coach. If Carr hadn't given out some really stupid contracts, 
the Celtics would have been able to go after some players to make up for 
their injuries but as it stood, he did. *Injuries* NOT lack of talent has 
hurt the Celtics even more than M.L. Carr, the coach, did.
I liken their season to San Antonio's. The Spurs went from 59 wins to 20 NOT 
because of the injury to David Robinson but because of the injurIES to 
Robinson (Missed 76 games), Smith (63) and Elliott (53). Boston had 5 players 
that lost 57 or more games: Radja (57), Barros (58), Minor (59), Brown (61) 
and Ellison (76). In addition, one of their replacements, Frank Brickowski, 
only played 17 games before he was hit by the Carr Curse. Imagine Houston 
losing Olajuwon, Drexler, Barkley and Willis or Chicago losing Jordan, 
Pippen, Longley and Rodman. Different players, different overall talents BUT 
the same kind of TEAM IMPACT. Keep this team from having that many injuries 
and you've got 33 wins. Add in Rick Pitino and some new players and you've 
got even more.
 DN> New Jersey however...  is another story.  Here you have a team with
 DN> Jayson Williams,  Kittles, Jackson, Gatling, Cassell..  not to mention
 DN> Montross and Massenburg.
You CAN'T have Jackson AND Kittles. Like it or not, they HAVE to get rid of 
Jackson because his presence doesn't add to their win total and keeps a much 
better potential talent on the bench. It's also doubtful that they keep 
Gatling OR Cassell - Gatling because it's either him or Williams (and they 
got him for CAP relief NOT future wins) and Cassell because his price might 
be more than they're willing to meet.
 DN>   I will make a bet with you right now.  I say that New Jersey is
 DN> going to finish ahead of Boston in next years standings.
Why not. I have a very good chance of winning it. Your track record isn't all 
that great...
 DN> Well I finally got a solid prediction out of you..  I wouldn't call
 DN> "could win as many as 40" games a:
 ->> FINE and IMMEDIATE future
Really? Gee, that's the kind of victory total that the Bulls built their 
dynasty on. They're not going to go to the top of their division for a couple 
of years because of some of the talent ahead of them, however, they're going 
to be in good position. If M.L. Carr were around next year, I'd cap their 
victory total off at 33 but Pitino can make more of a difference. Finally got 
a solid prediction? Dave, I've MORE THAN MADE IT CLEAR about where I thought 
Boston was headed. If you're the only person here that FINALLY gets it then 
that's your problem and not mine. I'm a LAKERS' FAN and even I can't let my 
bias close my eyes to the fact that Boston's problems weren't fixable.
 DN> point.. it's like you're set on continuous argue mode.
Pot calling the kettle black.
--- TrekEd 1.00
---------------