Being a starter is overrated...being on the floor at crunch time is a better measuring stick of what you are worth to a team.
This team has a strong tradition of 6th men. Those who come off the bench with pride and take over a game, not just kill time until [insert name] returns to the floor.
And when they are on the bench, they are working with the other players to help improve their game. Or, in this case, working with management to suggest adding players to the team.
I like IT...as stated, if he embraces that role, then hopefully he'll be a Celtic for a long time.
Rak
If being a starter is overrated, then why do most teams start their best players?
If being a starter is overrated, then why was it important to start Smart or Bradley over Thomas?
The fact is, being a starter lines up best with most team's player rotations to get a player ~32 minutes (8 to start the 1st, 8 to end the 2nd, 8 to start the 3rd and 8 to end the game). That's why starters generally get more minutes.
In the NBA, you generally win by having your best players on the floor as much as possible.
When we finally made McHale a full-time starter, in 85-86, it also happens that we won the title.
I'm fine with Thomas continuing to be our '6th man' off the bench, but not if our starters continue to be the abomination on offense that they were this last Spring.
Thomas may not complain about who is starting, but you can bet a lot of us fans have every right to complain about it when the starters were responsible for putting the team consistently in big holes to start game after game.