Re: BSG on pick swap rumor

["Berry, Mark S" <berrym@BATTELLE.ORG>]

I really have to disagree with BSG on this one. You can't think of it in
terms of 10&11 for 6. You have to think of it as Diop-Jefferson for Gasol.
Or Johnson-Haywood. Look at it this way... do you think the Celts would have
accepted the 11th and 12th picks in the draft in 1998 for the 10th pick,
when Pierce was there at 10? No way. That was Bonzi Wells and Keon Clark.
These aren't just numbers, they're players. If the Celts believe Gasol is a
Pierce-like talent, then 10&11 probably is a small price to pay. Maybe BSG
is right and the Celts love this draft so much there's no way they trade the
10&11 (although if they wouldn't trade 10&11 for 3, as BSG suggested,
they're nuts). BSG also says there's no way the Celts take 10&11 and don't
use one of those picks on a scorer, but if the draft falls the way Katz
suggests, then who exactly would BSG suggest the Celts take? Clearly, Diop
would be the best value at that point, and who would they take over Murphy?
Jefferson? Forte? Arenas? There's no way they reach for a "scorer" over the
best player at that point. Maybe they take VladRad, but can't you pretty
much switch him with Murphy and not notice the difference? Besides, isn't
Murphy a scorer? I don't think they'd draft him for his defense.

We've all read the scouting reports on Gasol that quote an anonymous
personnel guy saying he's the best talent in the draft. Maybe that's
Wallace. Maybe the Celts really believe Gasol is the best of this bunch. If
that's the case, wouldn't 10&11 for Gasol be worth it? Let's face it, we
don't know. It all comes down to Wallace's evaluation. But BSG's utter
dismissal of 10&11 for 6 is off base. Those kinds of trades happen in the
NBA draft. Remember last year, when Chicago had two top 10 picks and tried
to move up from four into the top two to land Miles? It didn't happen. I'm
sure Bulls fans were happy at the time, but don't you think they'd trade
Fizer and Crawford for Miles at this point? 

Look at it this way... if you were Vancouver, would you trade 6 for 11 and
21 (as BSG suggests)? No way. As deep as this draft is, the pick at 21 still
is going to be a crapshoot. There's no way Vancouver does that deal. (Of
course, having said that, they'll probably announce it in 10 minutes and
I'll have egg on my face.)

Another recent example... the Celts traded the 9 pick and Eric Montross (who
was a ninth pick two years before) for the six pick. Why? Because they saw
the 1996 draft as a six-player draft, and they basically were right.
Iverson, Camby, Shareef, Marbury, Allen and Toine. The ninth pick? Samaki
Walker. See... it's not just about "moving up three spots." It's about the
players you see at those spots.

Here's my biggest concern with the Celtics' quest for Gasol... why not go on
a quest for Curry/Brown/Griffin? I still get the feeling, as BSG suggests,
that the Celtic brass feels its No. 1 need is another wing scorer. This
thinking is just beyond me. Aren't our two best players wing scorers? Call
Toine a power forward all you want, but he doesn't play like one. This team
needs big bodies... power forwards and centers. You'd think they'd be
salivating over the idea of Diop dropping to 10. You'd think they'd be using
these three picks to try to move up for one of the young big men. Instead
they're moving up for a 7-1 small forward. Now, like I said, maybe they feel
he's the best player in the draft. If that's the case, you always take the
best player. But if he's better than Curry/Griffin/Brown, then let's book
his spot in the Hall of Fame today.

But I'm trying to avoid judging this based on Gasol as the target because I
have no idea how good he is. The truth is, I have no idea how good
Curry/Brown/Diop/Chandler are. Or Rodney White. I haven't seen White, Diop
or Chandler at all, and have only seen Curry and Brown in all-star games.
How do I know Gasol isn't better than any of them? I don't care if he's from
Spain or wherever. I'm just going to trust Wallace's evaluation.

Mark