RE: 11 for 17 and Ruben Patterson?

["Michael Griffin" <mgriffin@rillc.com>]

I take this deal whether or not Przybilla is there because I'm not that high
on the second coming of Big Country or Eric Montross who has fooled people
because of his stats against undersized front-courts in the big ten.  The
fact that skilled height is such a precious commodity, you really think that
the ten teams in front of us don't have a need for the "potential of" big P?
They all pass because of the assumption that he is Joe Klein.  Joe Klein was
6th overall!  Montross 5th overall!  Longley, Big Country, etc....

Ruben Patterson makes us better and, at 17, we still can grab an Etan
Thomas,Q Richardson,Stevenson.  I like this deal much better than the
Christie deal particularly if we get to offload a Calbert or McCarty.  You
know what you got in Patterson and the potential of the 17th pick could be
as good as the #11.  Who knows, maybe someone covets Erik Barkley and
they'll trade up to the 17th spot.  We trade down to low 20s and get rid of
another contract.  I like that too.  I don't know how much we are over the
cap but if we can get rid of Cheaney's 2M and McCartys 1M+? perhaps we free
up just enough to interest Croshere.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-celtics@igtc.com [mailto:owner-celtics@igtc.com]On Behalf Of
> Berry, Mark S
> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 9:19 AM
> To: 'celtics@igtc.com'
> Subject: 11 for 17 and Ruben Patterson?
>
>
> It's being discussed, according to NBATalk.com. The Celts also
> would include
> a salary (Calbert?). This is more appealing than Christie and 21.
> I'd still
> sit tight to see who is there. The Sonics want Crawford, and
> he'll be there
> at 11. But if Przybilla is there, how can we pass? At 17, we
> probably could
> add Stevenson, maybe Quentin Alexander, or maybe one of the point guards
> (not Dooling or Crawford).
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Mark
>