van horn

[Alex Wang <awang@mit.edu>]

It's been suggested on this list as well as on WEEI that
if there wasn't really anyone that good at #3 in the draft,
why didn't we move up to take van Horn? 

In fact Pitino has said, "We tried everything to get van Horn."
Which probably included having van Horn say that he didn't want
to play in Philly, as well as trying to package the #3 and #6 
pick. I don't think we could have beaten NJ's offer though, 
which not only included Jackson, Montross, Thomas, and Parker,
but also taking Philly's long-term contract junk. 

I suppose the closest equivalent offer we could make without giving 
up Walker would have been the #3 and #6 pick, Eric Williams, and next 
year's first-rounder, in return for van Horn and long-term contract junk.
I would guess that Larry Brown would have taken Billups at #3 and
Tim Thomas at #6. Personally, I think Duncan would be worth this but
not van Horn.

This reminds me of how clueless most of the "expert" draft analyses 
were before and after the draft. I remember reading several rankings
where Battie was at #2 and van Horn was at #6. 

You can tell that Pitino knew that the #3 was not going to be that
great because he was practically begging the Kansas undergraduates 
(lafrentz and pierce) to come out for the draft.

Alex