Re: Kwame dropping and etc...

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

> At 10:17 11/06/01 -0400, Berry, Mark  S wrote:
> >Going from the latest scuttle, here's a look at how the lottery could
shake
> >out... 1. Griffin; 2. Curry; 3. K. Brown; 4. Gasol; 5. White; 6.
Richardson; 7. Diop; 8. Battier; 9. Johnson; 10. Chandler; 11. Vlad Rad or
Cook.


These top ten look pretty reasonable, not necessarily in that order, and
this is what concerns me. I think we may be concred with losing out at 10 &
11 if we do not move up.  My concern is Chandler will be the one falling to
the 10 spot and he is not what we need, to thin.

Ending up with the likes of Tinsley, Randolph and Chandler would not be a
good draft unless Randolph can stay in shape. Reminds me too much of Tractor
Traylor with less offensive skills. I am still not sold on Tinsley. He just
dissapered in the big tournament games but does provide a quick penetrating
guard. Cook is a reeach at 11. We can find a lot of points with not shot,
not that we necessarily want a shoot first point, but you need to be a
threat.  Maybe Trenton Hassell a Bonzi Wells type or Joe Forte are better
picks, but still not a great draft.








> >
>
> Now seems to be the time for the Celtics to invite the projected top five
> picks for workouts, but so far none of these guys are among the 16-20
> players reportedly coming to Boston this week. Not even Diop or Chandler,
> much less Kwame.
>
> I think Wallace/Papile need to explore this week if it is worth making an
> offer to trade up. Bear in mind that If Pau Gasol were to pull out of this
> draft, you are talking about relatively slim pickings with the 10th and
> 11th pick (as far as the younger "upside" players go). Boston needs to
> study their options carefully. Well, I'm sure they are doing just that.
>
> Also, since we are bringing in Radmanovic this week I think we ought to
> also invite Troy Murphy as a basis for comparison. How do we know the
> Radman is that much better a shooter, or capable of guarding even slower
> players his size?
>
> Joe
>
> ***
>
>
>