Change In Leadership

Really? Is it that hard to understand?

Let look at the Boston Celtics of the 2006-2007 season. The team finished the season 24-58 - terrible by any standard. So what did the team go out and do? Draft all new players? Work with the players they already had? Trade for "new" players? I'm pretty sure the answer is; "all three".

Ray Allen - Acquired in a trade with Seattle.
Paul Pierce - Drafted by Celtics in 1998.
Rajon Rondo - Draft rights acquired from Phoenix, June 28, 2006.
Kendrick Perkins - Draft rights acquired from Memphis on June 26, 2003 out of Ozen High School in Beaumont, Texas.
Kevin Garnett - Acquired in a trade with Minnesota.


In the 2007-2008 season, the Celtics improved their record to 66-16 and won the NBA Title.
K.G. had played for a rival NBA franchise.
Ray Allen "had game" but hadn't won a championship with the Seattle Sonics.
Kendrick Perkins was drafted by the Celtics as a "project" - only improving his game and contribution after Garnett was acquired.
Rajon Rondo was a solid draft by the franchise who exploded onto the national scene during the Celt's championship run.
Paul Pierce had labored tirelessly for the under performing Celtics.

Put all of these "Old" players in "New" roles and with a new dynamic and you win a championship.
That's it.
The winning is the change.
The better final result is the change.

Obama is a basketball fan.
He knows that when Duke's Coach K took a team of prima-donas and formed the US Olympic Basketball Team - The USA won.
Are Kobe, Lebron and Mello best friends or competitors? Did all of these players understand their role in the system implemented by Coach K?
Obama didn't mean a change in team members.
Obama meant a change in results.

What matters more?
A change in people or a change in results?