The most recent trade splash before the trade deadline looms this week is the acquisition of Carmelo Anthony by the Knicks. After reading some local NY articles, there seems to be a split opinion about this move.

On the one hand, Carmelo is a superstar and as promising as Gallinari, Mozgov, and Chandler are, and as well as Felton has played in his first year with the Knicks, helping their team to an above .500 record, a star like Melo coupled with another proven superstar in Amare Stoudemire is too devastating a combination to pass up. Plus, the Knicks get Chauncey Billups who plays at both ends of the floor and who has championship experience. A key missing ingredient on the Knicks before the trade.

But the basketball purist in me hates this trade. The Knicks - by the looks of it, Isiah Thomas's footprints were totally on this - took a few years to rebuild their team through young talent. The young talent they've acquired have helped shape a new and unique identity surrounding the Knicks. LJ, Ewing, Starks, etc formed one era. And for many years the era following it was defined by total discord. But the likes of Felton, Gallinari, and Chandler were destined, by many, to form their own personal identity into hopefully a team with substance and future. And they showed signs of such promise after 54 games of regular season action.

On paper,  I can't help but laugh at the notion that the Knicks became a worse team today. They didn't. But for the sake of basketball purism and wanting to see draft picks pan out on the team they were groomed by (like the Spurs, whose draft picks Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili have formed a core in San Antonio for more than a decade), this swap exposed to the world once again that basketball executives are less concerned with maintaining a specific image or identity out of their players, and subsequently demanding an unquestioned loyalty to their roots. Simply put, when a trade can make your team better, players should be ready to pack their bags at any given notice despite contributions to said team.

The Celtics encountered a situation that was much like this one. Very few Celtics fans actually wanted to see Al Jefferson go after his breakout season in 2006-2007. And as some of you may remember, there were plenty of fans distrubed by the notion of mortgaging their future for a player or two in their 30s and despite proven track records were not viewed as completely compatible pieces with the Celtics and their history. Until they took the court of course and started chanting ubuntu and backing up their promises with championship winning.

No guarantees can be made with regard to the Knicks and their new found success. The point is that arguments on both ends of the fence are understandable, because the reality of any meaningful business transaction is that you have to give a little to get a little, unless you're just really lucky.

I see posters complaining about the individual performances of certain players - like Big Baby.

This is my take: Big Baby is what he is - an above average role playing big on a championship caliber team. Nothing more, nothing less.

He is not Kevin Garnett, nor will ever be... anything close.

Your disappointment with Baby resides in a comment Doc made after Garnett went down with that calf strain. Guys cannot play outside their abilities; you can expect to play well as a team when players simply contribute within their capabilities and the team concept. Unfortunately, the Celtics are so out of rhythm with no Rondo and Garnett that they are forced into lots of isolation. We are banking on players like Marquis Daniels to make shots, a player who with all due respect should never be "counted" on to provide anything beyond a little here and there. We are banking on Ray Allen and Nate Robinson to make off balance 3's all game rather than what they do best which is working off of well practiced sets. Paul Pierce has done little wrong the last few games we've been struggling, as he is not to blame for the slew of injuries, but he is beginning to look a lot again like the Pierce before the KG days. He wants to handle the ball the bulk of the time even if it leads to a lot of turnovers.

I think this goes to show Celtic-nation that our team's success depends mostly on Rondo and Garnett. While Pierce and Allen are Boston's best scorers, Rondo and KG provide the defensive toughness and IQ needed to win games. Robinson is good at his "sparkplug" label, and will occassionally score a bunch of points in a hurry when you need it. However, he is no starting PG. He is not someone who adheres to the discipline required of a championship team that plays tough at both ends. At least in regards to a starting PG role.

I think the Celtics need to do a couple things. First, they need to get an adequate point guard who can actually run an offense in the event Rondo goes down again but for an extended period of time where will be unable to return. Unless West returns to game shape immediately after he steps onto the hardwood again, the C's are in trouble unless they make such a move. The amount of turnovers this team is committing is horrendous and indicative of our lack of PG. Secondly, they need to focus on discipline. Garnett is the one who sets the tempo for everyone else to play with a purpose... Pierce and Allen have mostly been unable to do this. Shots should never be forced; plays must be made with the intention of scoring on a high percentage shot. Garnett's offense is usually high percentage which will be a missed component to the Celtics MO until he comes back. But the C's need to make the game simple for themselves again. That, in turn, should lead to better qualify basketball.

He is easily the most inconsistent player in recent Celtics history. No player (in my recollection) encounters swings of extremes like T.A. It only takes a week for T. Allen to go from "valued asset" to "15th man/doesn't belong in NBA." Even this season, people didn't see the point of having Tony on our roster unless his contact would later be inserted in a trade for a bigger named player.

This inconsistency mind you, dates back to his rookie year, when he surprised Celtic-nation with how athletic he was and how effective he was at defending the opponent's best player. And with good comes the bad, because when you least needed careless turnovers, poor shooting, and boneheaded plays, TA would find himself at the wrong place in the wrong time (on and off the court).

*

Despite various injuries over the years, he's enjoyed peaks of play (notably the '06-'07 season after Pierce went down with the foot injury) where he demonstrated terrific potential. He looked to be a future all star to some, perhaps a "mini Ron Artest." But the comparisons quickly stopped after he returned from his torn ACL injury and (despite a few good games, like the road game during '07-'08 season in LA where they beat the Lakers) played less than desirably.

Essentially. When you feel like you've had it up to here with TA, he finds a way to change your mind. And he's done this at least 3 or 4 times, maybe more. I just wonder, has there ever been a player in our team's history whom fans were perpetually ready to give up on, only to correct themselves days later due to sporadic play? We've had cases like Vin Baker, who showed promise one night and made us depressed the next, but Baker didn't spend much time here. Tony's remarkably been one of the longest tenured Celtics, after Pierce and Perkins. What was Greg Kite like? LOL

Ben Gordon is one of the most fascinating players in the NBA in my humble opinion. Since his rookie year he gained credibility quickly with his clutch performances. They say in Chicago that "Gordon rhymes with Jordan."

What intrigues me a lot about Gordon is how he can show you two different sides: As a lethal scorer and reliable option who can be counted upon as a weapon on consecutive possessions, or as a mere "role player" who is simply being paid the amount he is to be a 3 point specialist.

On one night he will remind you of Kobe, with the degree of difficulty in the shots he will make. On another, he's comparable to a guy like Eddie House (which is nothing to shrug about - especially on a  night like tonight where Eddie had ice in his veins). But how do you pay a guy like that? What are your expectations of him in terms of production and reliability? Is he really a #1 option or is he just a role player?

I think this is an important question for Bulls fans who wonder if he is worth the max. Frankly, on a lot of nights I think he is. But if you pay a guy like that franchise dough, the amount you can distribute to other players is sort of limited. You also have to factor how he'll fit into the Bulls future plans, since they still have Deng to worry about (and his 5 remaining years of being on contract) and Salmons, who has 2 more years.

Paxson has a huge offseason ahead of him. He has a franchise PG, some decent bigs to help build a fort, and a few nice swingmen (not named BG) who are not old. But a careless decision could tie them down and impede their improvement efforts over the coming years.

With Delonte West coming clean about a severe mood disorder that has affected his state of mind for the vast duration of his life, he may have helped break a taboo within not only his basketball teammates and close friends, but the outside community constituted by fans and sports addicts like you and me who (may) view depression as a mental weakness rather than a chemical imbalance that personal accountability alone cannot solve.

In the Delonte West thread posted a week or so ago, someone hit the nail on the head with the comment that the way we think affects how we behave so much that the actual verbalization of its presence is deemed socially unfit. Sometimes as humans we get so caught up in our mundane, everyday lives, that we don't think twice about putting ourselves in others shoes. It's easy to take the easy route by judging a person's internal processing by external behaviors or situations. In psychology that is commonly viewed as a cognitive fallacy that all humans are guilty of making.... like, all the time.

"Why can't that person understand that he's depressed because he acts like such a moron and he's putting himself in situations where he knows he's going to be rejected by his peers and desired social companions?" That's just one example. I am not speaking on behalf of Delonte, for I know nothing about his situation.

Once in a while, we hear about an athlete - a predominant one, too - who's seeing a sports psychologist for treating stimuli hindering the said athlete's performance. John Smoltz is the first one that comes to mind. But for the most part, athletes go about their everyday lives and are told by authority figures and even their "fans" to suck it up when they don't play well and start playing better. Easy say easy do right? Well in some cases laziness and a bad attitude may go hand in hand. But after hearing about Delonte, can you really be so judgmental now and make that instant attribution?

When I think of the complications of depression, another athlete that also comes to mind is Vin Baker. He's stated repeatedly that his alcoholism (hence the crude nickname Gin Baker) was his anti-drug for his bouts with depression. Alcoholism, which is universally treated as a disease, would essentially co-exist with depression and form co-morbidity loops to dominate his cognition... all the while being asked to do things like playing basketball at an all star level.

Sometimes I think, none of us really appreciate what star athletes do. We think based on the money they make and the fact that they're playing a kid's sport on top of that - is like cutting the cake and eating it too. The amount of pressure they put on themselves to play a widely broadcasted game while attempting to live stable, happy lives beyond the glory however, is very underdocumented. A few years ago, Mark Jackson (current NBA broadcaster, former NBA all star PG) mentioned that alcohol is a huge problem within the NBA community because after losses, players will literally binge drink themselves to sleep. Would you say that the incidence of some form of a personality or mood disorder is not totally out of the question given that piece of information? 

In everyday mortal lives like ours even, how simple is it to make an appointment with a person who'd be treating you with medication for something that could be so deeply rooted in you that you don't even know the origin of it, and why you even feel the way you do?

Our own lives as non athletes and everyday workers is much like that, except devoid of the absurd amounts of job related pressure (although I'm only speaking on behalf of myself, as I only work part time while balancing it with college). It's easy to acknowlege that a problem exists, but breaking out of the everyday motions and making a change can be extremely difficult. That is why I have so much respect for Delonte West. He was considering quitting a game that he loves, that he has attributed as one of the only things in this world that gives him peace of mind, because of mood related problems that most of us before stepping back to educate ourselves about the nature of depression might admit to initially perceiving as "weak" or "not making sense."

What this entry is about doesn't just pertain to the incidence of depression. It's about us being humans and making changes for the better in matters that people will unfairly judge you, criticize you, and internally view you as inferior to even though YOU know it's the right thing to do that will help make the remainder of life more enjoyable. From changing a career, to starting over with a new marriage, to seeking help for any such life issues that are not uncommon - if you have the willingness to set aside your ego to make life for yourself more enjoyable, do it. 

I know I can't walk into your shoes, but I also know that taking action for things is never a bad option. Try it.

For the record, I don't plan on using this "fanpost" feature too much. I'll do it once and every so often so to remain fresh with commentary on certain topics that I'd like fans to give their input on (not that I can't do this on the message boards...)

Eddie House is your prototypical Celtic. He bleeds Celtics pride. I emphasize the "bleed." This guy has been disrespected by being benched in favor of inferior players throughout his career, yet has established himself as one of the best #3 or 4 guards in the NBA. On many teams, I believe that Eddie House would be a viable starter. It's easy for outsiders (fans of other teams, casual fans of games) to insist that House only performs in his role due to the talent he's around, but this is a shortsighted comment that doesn't take into account knowledge of how Eddie plays. To me, House on a good day is nothing short of AI. It's kind of a stretch, one might add, to compare a backup guard to a future hall of famer, but once again, if you've seen Eddie House play, you know what I'm talking about. The way House can shoot over his defender all day everday without a conscience is amazing. This guy has a total knack for making a shot in traffic that has no business going in. He makes them when he's open and they count, too. In BOS's game 4 comeback, he nailed a jumper to give the Celtics a lead - a lead that seemed unfathomable, unattainable for the majority of the game. In a moment of rememberance, he thanked the fans in a bow down salute immediately after the clock finished ticking in game 6 ; that exact point in time had sealed relief yet glory for Celtics fans who had just been waiting too long. He just knows how to be in the right place at the right time - focusing his energies in places where they matter and where he's recognized, but really he's not doing it for his own personal recognition.

Live long, Eddie. Stay away Sam. This is Eddie's role.