Re: JB's good point

[Hironaka <j.hironaka@unesco.org>]

Jim Metz wrote:

>     We have three picks. I wan't next years team to have a bona fide
> all-star, ready to play. We can trade one or two picks for him and still
> keep one pick to land a project.
>     With Moiso already on board why do we need two or three rookies?
>     You are kidding yourselves to think they will help us within two or
> three years.
>     What if we had drafted McGrady and Jermaine O'neil with top ten picks?
> Three unproductive years and they became someone else's prize. Even after
> three years Toronto and Portland weren't sure what they had.

Those are very reasonable points, actually. But we did get Paul Pierce with a
10th pick in what most people thought was a weaker draft than this one. As
I've tried to demonstrate in the past, that wasn't some colossal fluke either.
The best player on many NBA teams was drafted at or after the 10th pick
(McGrady, Houston, Kobe...).

For some reason, I think that having two shots at the 10th available player
(the 10th and 11th picks) improves the odds that we'll land a "keeper" who can
help the Celtics right away (or soon). It really depends on how good all these
unknown younger players are on closer examination, which is Wallace's job.

This isn't a bad draft at all IMO. If Kenyon Martin were a senior this year,
there would no doubt be a spirited debate as to whether he was even worth
gambling our #11 pick,  much less #1 overall (he not only had a broken leg but
he measured out at the same 6-8  height as Shane Battier).

It seems prudent to bring in as many players as possible for evaluation,
before Boston decides to trade or keep the picks. No rush. I'm sure we'll be
getting plenty of offers (precisely from teams that need picks like
Minnesota). I guarantee you every offer will start with the maximum 3 million
dollar cash gift. Gaston is just looking out for his shareholders. ;-)

Enough. Time for me to head home.

------