Is Tinsley available at #21 still?

[kevin from singapore <bostonceltics17@yahoo.com>]

What SportsIllustrated said:
"If you want a point guard, try next year. With guys like Duke's Jason Williams,
Illinois' Frank Williams and Memphis signee DaJaun Wagner waiting until 2002,
Iowa State's Jamaal Tinsley is the only sure first-rounder at the position."
================================
Everywhere I read, Tinsley sounds like a late round pick, or mid round at best.
They graded him not to be all-star type, but a good ROLE player. So, teams
drafting him would be doing out of "needs", instead of "potential or upppside".

With this in mind, I did a little guesswork with all picks upto #21, asking each
team "do you need to draft Tinsley?"

Here goes:
1. Washington
Rod is gone, Chris Whitney is the anioted one. If they trade down, it's a
possibility. But at #1, no way they draft Tinsley.

2. L.A. Clippers
No way at #2. Anyway, they got Dooling and McGinnis at cheap rates.

3. Atlanta
Not here, unless they trade down. Brevin Knight backed up by Tinsley, quite
potent.

4. Chicago
Not here, Jamal Crawford is their point guard of the future.

5. Golden State
Not here. Maybe at their other pick (#14)

6. Vancouver
Unless they trade down and move Bibby, why waste a high pick on a ROLE player.

7. New Jersey
No need as they've got 71mil dollar man - Marbury.

8. Cleveland
Andre Miller is here, backed up by Bimbo Coles. So , no.

9. Detroit
Got Chucky Atkins and their point guard of the future, Cleeves, So. no.

10. Boston
you make your own calculations.

11. Denver (if we don't take it)
They need a back up PG to Van Exel, but if other potentials are available, would
they go for it? Judging from last year's draft, Issel tried very hard to get
their big man of the future (drafted N'aye - since traded, McClinton - likely
not resigned). With this draft loaded with big man potential, I think Issel
would try again to get his big man centre.  So, unlikely.

12. Seattle
They got Payton (disgrunted) and Shammond Williams (FA). They got no centre, so
they likely will go big. I say 30% they go for Tinsley.

13. Houston
They already got Francis. They have got other holes (SF and C) to fill up. So,
no.

14. Golden State (from Indiana)
Mookie is going into last year of the contract and Cummings seemed unable to get
it done (long term). They've got big money invested in C (Dampier), PF
(Fortson), SG (Sura), so it is likely they would take a PG.

15. Orlando
I think not, as T-Mac can play part-time point and Armstrong is still good for
at least 2 years still.

16. Charlotte
I think not, as Wesley and Davis are good for next 3-4 years.

17. Toronto
They've got Childs under contract and look to lock up Alvin Williams (to appease
Carter). So not likely they go for Tinsley.

18. Houston (from New York through Phoenix and Orlando) 
This pick might go Detriot. Either way, Detriot or Houston ain't picking a PG.

19. Portland
Barkley still couldn't get the minutes, why would they want to add to the
logjam?

20. Cleveland (from Miami) 
I think they would go for more "upside or potential" type.

In summary, we face competition in drafting Tinsley with:

Washington #1 - Only if they trade down for multiple picks
Atlanta #3 - Only if they trade down for multiple picks
Vancouver #6 - Unless they trade down and/or Bibby is gone.
Denver #11 - Not likely, as Issel might draft for size.
Sonics #12 - Not likely, as they need size.
Golden State #14 - likely, but depending on what players with potential/upppside
are available.


So, we've got just Golden State to "compete with" for Tinsley. I think we should
just draft Best Available Player at 10 and 11, and wait for Tinsley to fall to
#21. If Tinsley is gone by #21, Cook should still be around. 

But at #21, I would rather (again) go for Best Talent/Potential Available
(Gerald Wallace? Cisse?), as I think Anderson/Brown/Palacio/Walker will be
adequate at the PG position till next season, when Jason Williams, Frank
Williams are available.

cheers
kevin