Re: draft "defense-first" kind of player.

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

Jefferson could be a steal at 10 or 11, especially if he develops
offensively. He is a bit raw offensively but an awesome athlete and shut
down the likes of Frank Williams and Jason Richardson. He could be an even
better defender than a Michael Cooper. I still can't forget the block on
Richardson's dunk in the tournament. He is one of the few players with size
and sped to contain a Kobe or make give a shorter Iverson nightmares.


John




john


----- Original Message -----
From: "kevin from singapore" <bostonceltics17@yahoo.com>
To: <celtics@igtc.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2001 6:15 PM
Subject: draft "defense-first" kind of player.


>
> (The Celtic "Tird",  Celticus "tirdius") wrote:
>
> >Lest this response be completely negative or sarcastic,
> >I've got to say that I agree with this: drafting players that can
> >play good defense is a really good idea.
> >The team might be able to use another scorer,
> >but if it solidified its team defense, the Celtics would improve greatly.
> >Good call.    Players who could give the team defense and some scoring,
> >as well, would be better still.
>
> thanks for the "good call" remark. It sort of gave me a lift or
> "umpff." (like a Seles or Venus grunt when hitting a return)
>
> Looking at the posted wingspans data, I must say the Richard Jefferson
> guy is impressive. 6-7 with 7-4 wingspan (I think)? Most (if not all)
> net sources said Jefferson is a very good defensive demon. I think
> right here someone posted Jefferson shut down PG Frank Williams in
> some important game. I would go for him if he's available. Of course
> jefferson has got to be a better prospect than Bruce "no offense"
> Bowen to interest me.
>
> Tinsley's measurement was "disappointing", 6-0? But then again,
> sometimes, heart and skills counts can more than make up what's lost
> in height (examples like a young Tim Hardaway or Brevin Knight).
>
> My strategy with our 10 or 11 pick, if Tinsley is available is to call
> up Golden State ask them if they want Tinsley bad enough to move up to
> 10 or 11 to get him. If yes, we can do like this:
>
> Boston sends 10 pick to Golden State
> Boston sends Kenny Anderson to Bulls
>
> Golden State sends 14 pick to Celtics
> Golden State sends 2002  #1 pick (protected) to Celtics
> Golden State sends Mookie Baylock to the Bulls
>
> Bulls trades Kenny Anderson to Golden State for Mookie Baylock
>
> Summary:
> Celtics get 2001 #14 pick + 2002 # 1 pick (top 3from Warriors).
> Celtics gives up Kenny + #10 pick.
> Why do it?
> moving from #10 to  #14, might not be a big difference as we are
> having the #11 already. I think #14 still can be a good valued pick,
> if pick wisely.
> With Kenny, addition by subtraction.
> We get another pick in 2002.
>
> Golden State get #10 pick + Kenny Anderson.
> Gives up Mookie + 2002 #1 pick (protected)
> Why do it?
> With #10, they might NOT draft Tinsley or a PG at all, with all the 7
> footers (Woods/Haywood/Dalembat/A Jones/Ken Johnson) still available.
> In other words, they have more options to chose from.
> In Anderson, they get a veteran who wants to play and capable on his
> day. With just 2 years remaining on his contract, he is not a cap hog.
> Moving want-away Mookie is addition by subtraction.
>
> Bulls get Mookie (01/02 is last year of contract)
> Bulls gives up --- NOTHING!!!
> Why do it?
> It's obvious! Bulls gives up NOTHING to get a 1 year player (former
> All-Star if i remember correctly) who can be dealt come Febuary
> dateline for more draft choices or salary cap purposes. Moreover,
> Bulls are dying for more veteran players, and Mookie still can play.
> It would make Brand happy.
>
> This trade idea have not been checked with realgm.com.
>
> just an idea
> kevin
>
>