Re: the JW mock draft/PP

[Jeremy <jwarren@eecs.tufts.edu>]

On Thu, 25 Jun 1998, Greg Odegaard wrote:

> Not to "mock" Jeremy's mock draft, but look at where folks like him put our
> boy Paul.  He and others have Pierce at anywhere from 2 to 6.  For those
> who would criticize this pick, don't.  Call it briliance or dumb luck, Rick
> knows talent (m/l) and obviously Petrie in Sacramento doesn't.

	Greg I was waiting for someone to call me out on that.  I don't
know which was worse, picking Pierce to go second or Nazr to go ninth
(instead of 29th).  All I can say is being dead wrong has never felt so
good.

	I was watching the draft with a friend who happens to be a Faker
fan.  His reaction was priceless.  He was pissed at Rick Pitino.  "Pitino
got so lucky.  He better not take credit for this!!!"

	Going into the draft, I was so ready to be disappointed.  Everyone
that we had a shot at had big problems.  Nazr was too much of a project to
be a 10 pick.  Doleac is well developed but probably not much better than
DeClerq.  Keon is very athletic but very thin.  That wouldn't be a big
deal if he were 19, but the man is 23.  Nowitski I liked a lot, and I had
a feeling that the possibility of him playing in Italy next year was a
Pitino smoke screen to diminish his stock.

	So going into the draft I was hoping for Nowitski and would have
been happy with him.  Paul Pierce???  Who would have thought.  Not even
Warwick had him slipping to us.  The thing is nearly every team in front
of us drafted for need instead of taking the best available player.
Pierce at 10 in this year's draft is about 10 times more amazing than
getting Mercer at 6 last year and Walker at 6 the year before.

	Going into the draft wouldn't you have hated to be in Pitino's
shoes.  Do you take a scrub at 10 who probably won't have any impact on
the team next year, or trade away Mercer or Walker to move up, or package
the pick with deadwood and move down?  That's why Pitino is paid $7M a
year to make those decisions.  The irony is that the Celtics could have
hired me for minimum wage for 10 minutes last night, and they would still
have come away with Paul Pierce.

	Lastly, there's no way we could have turned down Knight for Van
Exel.  Either LA turned it down or the trade proposal was Van Exel and
Campbell for Knight and Kenny.  I can understand turning that down.  Now
that Van Exel has been shipped for LaRue and Battie, it seems like LA
could use some leadership at the point.  What about Dana and Travis for
Campbell?  It helps both teams.  Then we could try to send Minor to
Houston (Elie and Barkley are FA's and Drexler has retired) for Brent
Price, who is now third on Houston's point guard depth chart.  Price is a
decent point guard who would provide insurance for Kenny's knee problems.
None of these moves create cap space but they fill out the roster well.

	I know there are a lot of Campbell detractors (is that a word?)
out there, but wouldn't you rather pay him $7M per year than Geiger?  This
team needs a big tough center more than ever.  We have four solid starters
now but no one with any real inside presence.  Popeye Jones should be
resigned, he'll be a key role player.

	If you had to pick out the team who drafted the best this year,
(not who got the luckiest), who would it be?  I would go with Orlando.
They picked Doleac, Keon Clark, and Harping at 12, 13, and 15.  Then they
got Miles Simon at 42.  They drafted amazingly well because they ignored
their biggest need (a point guard) and always took the best available
player.  They now have plenty of fodder to trade for a point guard.  With
that said, these four combined probably won't have the impact that Pierce
will have.  But you can't really call drafting Pierce a brilliant move
(anymore than San Antonio taking Duncan last year).  It was the very
definition of a no-brainer.

	I still expect a big trade for a big man to happen soon since the
July 1 lockout will prevent us from doing anything.... That's all.  I'm
done.  Any questions?  


Jeremy