denver pick

["Thomas Murphy" <tfmiii@worldnet.att.net>]

Great point Joe, I still don't know why there is even a question about
whether to use the pick or not. First off, almost anyone you draft is going
to be 2-3 years away from really blossoming (particularly the
highschoolers). We need help now so we need to start grooming new talent
ASAP.

Second, your right to point out that Denver is not that far away out west.
All it takes is a major injury to one of the leading teams (that's how SA
got in the lotto for Duncan) and some of the lesser teams not performing up
to par and Denver is in. That's not even considering whether Denver
continues to improve (They did have a better record than we did, didn't
they? That's why they've got the 11th while we have the 10th pick - and they
did that in a much tougher conference . . .)

I hope Alex is right and Wallace is a lot more manipulative and
machiavellian then he is letting on . . .

-Tom
--------------
> Joe
>
> N.B. One comment on the WEEI Wallace interview, I don't see any
> justification in waiting out the Denver pick (as Wallace hints we might
do)
> unless he can make an argument that Denver may be one of the three worst
> teams in the NBA in the coming years. Instead, he seems to argue that
Denver
> is very unlikely to make the playoffs in the more competitive West even if
> they finish 11th worst again. I mean is that just pissah as an argument or
> what? We pass on a deep 2001 draft so that we can have a 1% chance at
> winning the lottery with Denver's future pick (the 1% figure is the
percent
> of ping pong balls a team has with the 10th pick). With that kind of fuzzy
> math going for our brain trust, this team deserved not to get Tim Duncan
if
> you ask me.  Something must have got lost in the translation (trade a sure
> pick for a 1% chance). That is flat out one of the stupidest arguments
I've
> heard in awhile.