ESPN Says Underachieving Celtics Should Be Better

[Way Of The Ray <wayray@ix.netcom.com>]

http://espn.go.com/nba/s/2000/0712/629797.html

I'm of the opinion, not better.  Going into the draft, the Celtics
needed
a shot blocking center (sniff, Milwaukee deals for Pryzbilla),
a shooting guard (sniff, Alexander to Dallas), and an
upgrade at point, and they got none of them. What they acquired
was a seven foot small forward, whom the coach has already admitted
(see today's Herald - Basketball Notes column) won't help the
club much next season. Now, while the C's are standing pat,
and possibly retrograding (loss of Fortson - team's best backup center
and rebounder), the Nets, Knicks, Cavs, Magic, Bulls, Hawks, Heat,
76ers (if Brown gets Iverson under control and Speedy Claxton is
the player I think he is), Pacers (re-sign core free agents and Bender's

blossoming), and Bucks have all improved.

Detroit has regressed. Charlotte could too, depending on what they
do with Jones - dumping Mason would be an addition by subtraction.
Toronto could actually be better, despite McGrady's loss, if
Peterson plays well and they finally come up with a legitimate
point guard. The Wizards are still the same, but might improve,
if MJ can get Strickland, one of the league's best point guards,
on the same page.

So, please tell me how the C's are going to be better, if a majority
of the other clubs in the conference have improved, and they
haven't?

And one more thing to consider.  The C's were relatively injury free
last season, because a disheartened Pitino abandoned the
press.  Now, he's allegedly going back to a pressing and
trapping style and the wear and tear it puts on the players
playing it. I think you'll probably see more injuries this
season, negating some of the C's alleged improvement.
I think as the Celtics presently stand, one major injury to
a player like Pierce, and hello top five pick. Which might
not be a bad thing - the pick, not the Pierce injury.
Ray