Re: Post-lottery draft thoughts

["John Lyell" <johnlyell@hotmail.com>]

I still don't see a reason for trading Pierce a guy who ca play the 2 or 3,
instead of Walker a guy who cannot play the 3 or 4 spot.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex Wang" <awang@mit.edu>
To: <celtics@igtc.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 4:36 PM
Subject: Post-lottery draft thoughts


> 1. I don't foresee us moving up in the lottery, especially not by trading
> Antoine Walker as has been suggested. Antoine doesn't have that sort
> of trade value because of his large contract and his inconsistency.
> The Clippers, for instance, are not going to be interested in Antoine,
> because they are a cheap team. They'd much rather have someone on a
> rookie contract.
>
> Now Pierce, on the other hand, is on a rookie contract, which puts him
> on equal footing contract-wise with this year's draftees. If the Celtics
> were interested in moving up in the draft, I imagine that Pierce might
> interest teams like the Clippers (#3), Chicago (#4 and #7), and Orlando
> (#5, #10, #13). None of these teams have established players at shooting
> guard.
>
> A trade like Pierce and Barros for the #3 and Derek Anderson could be
> a possibility, depending on who is still available at #3. I honestly can't
> say whether I like this sort of trade or not because I don't have the
> knowledge or ability to evaluate pro prospects. But I think something like
> this is more realistic than trades involving Walker. In general I would
> doubt that we move up at all, because the team would get younger (and
> probably significantly worse in the near term). Beyond that Pierce has
> proven that he can play in this league, which you can't say about any
> of the draft picks.
>
> 2. There's been talk that Orlando would like to get rid of their draft
> picks. Certainly lottery picks have good value and they won't be forced
> to get rid of them for nothing. I would guess that they would trade
> their draft picks this year for future first round picks if they just
> want to get rid of them to save cap space. If we are high on several
> players in lower lottery, we could possibly trade one of our 2001 picks,
> or even a more distant first rounder, for either the #10 or #13.
> I seem to remember these sorts of trades happening without cap
> implications but I'm not sure.
>
> If we had two picks this year, we could go for one young project type
> and one more proven, immediate performer.
>
> Alex
>
>