Peter May of the Boston Globe sounds off on yesterday?s Sonics/Celtics trade, ?Isn't it interesting how basketball economics work these days? An owner won't dare spend $3 million to bring back someone who has had a demonstrable and positive impact on his team. But he will turn around and agree to take on more than $50 million owed to someone who, to be charitable, has been a classic underachiever the last four years.?

The Celtics played hardball with Rodney Rogers, whose play off the bench was one of the factors to propel them to the Conference Finals last season. But they open the checkbook for perennial underachiever Vin Baker. This, May explains, is one of the mysteries of the luxury tax. Rogers, re-signed at $3 million would cost more than Baker, making more than $12 million.

While losing Rogers is not a good thing, making a deal to try and replace his production, is. The Celtics recognized that they couldn?t bring Rogers back, but rather than let him go with nothing in return, they traded for some help in the middle. And, if you look at it as a 2-for-1 trade, Baker and Shammond Williams for Kenny Anderson, it doesn?t seem so bad.

Anderson wasn?t the only Celtic traded away, but he was the only one who was important to the team?s success. Joe Forte never played and Vitaly Potapenko missed the playoffs with an injury, but the Celtics never missed him. Williams wan a key factor in the C?s success last season and they have no one to adequately replace him.

So be prepared for the following statement: ''A lot of our offense runs through Antoine [Walker] anyway.'' That will be the party line to minimize the loss.